Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0

Main Article Content

Abstract

Linked authenticity, integrity, reliability, attribution, jurisdiction, and privacy challenges are created by digital evidence from cloud platforms, Internet of Things (IoT) devices, artificial intelligence (AI), large language models (LLMs), biometrics, drones, blockchain, and virtual environments. This review synthesizes scholarly and authoritative sources on cybercrime law, digital forensics, and emerging technologies through a structured narrative review. The review reveals a technical–legal divide: it emphasizes investigative efficiency, while acquisition, hashing, metadata, chain of custody, tool validation, and automated-analysis reliability require clarification for evidentiary scrutiny. Technology, evidence source, forensic challenge, legal risk, admissibility requirement, and governance response are linked through the Technology–Forensic–Legal Admissibility (TFLA) Framework. Primary artifacts are distinguished from analytical outputs; technical weaknesses are translated into legal consequences and safeguards. Standards and evidentiary rules are complemented; TFLA is conceptual, not empirically validated. Technology-neutral, technically informed, rights-compliant governance is supported through transparent documentation, corroboration, human oversight, and institutional competence. Digital-forensic system design is linked to trustworthy technology governance.

Keywords

Cybercrime law Digital forensics Electronic evidence Forensic tool validation Technology-neutral regulation Legal admissibility

Article Details

How to Cite
Anand, V. ., Singh, A. ., Singh, A. K. ., Chandra, D. ., Rahul, Singh, N. ., & Kumar, K. . (2026). Cybercrime law and digital forensics: adapting legal frameworks for future technologies. Future Technology, 5(4), 284–298. Retrieved from https://fupubco.com/futech/article/view/1155
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Bookmark and Share

References

  1. R. K. Bharati, P. G. Khodke, C. P. Khadilkar, and S. K. Bawiskar, “Forensic Bytes: Admissibility and Challenges of Digital Evidence in Legal Proceedings,” International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology, vol. 11, no. 16, pp. 24–35, 2024. Publisher record verified; SSRN version DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4896874.
  2. E. Arjun and P. Singh, “Future Directions in Digital Forensics and Cybersecurity,” in Securing the Digital Frontier: Threats and Advanced Techniques in Security and Forensics, Wiley, 2025, pp. 333–365. doi: 10.1002/9781394268917.ch15.
  3. Jaddoa and K. Ainscough, “From Devices to the Dock: Challenges in the Legal Admissibility of IoT Evidence,” in Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Future Internet of Things and Cloud (FiCloud), 2025, pp. 467–476. doi: 10.1109/FiCloud66139.2025.00071.
  4. S. Katkuri, “Securing the Digital Frontier: Legal Analysis of Cybersecurity, Data Privacy and Cyber Forensics in India,” Indian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 75–91, 2025. doi: 10.1177/00195561241284886.
  5. AlMutawa, R. A. Ikuesan, and H. Said, “Towards a Comprehensive Metaverse Forensic Framework Based on Technology Task Fit Model,” Future Internet, vol. 16, no. 12, Art. no. 437, 2024. doi: 10.3390/fi16120437.
  6. D. Dunsin, M. C. Ghanem, K. Ouazzane, and V. Vassilev, “A Comprehensive Analysis of the Role of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Modern Digital Forensics and Incident Response,” Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, vol. 48, Art. no. 301675, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.fsidi.2023.301675.
  7. R. Thakur, S. Kumar, S. K. Singh, K. Singla, S. K. Sharma, and V. Arya, “Cyber Synergy: Unlocking the Potential Use of Biometric Systems and Multimedia Forensics in Cybercrime Investigations,” in Digital Forensics and Cyber Crime Investigation: Recent Advances and Future Directions, CRC Press, 2024, pp. 241–267. doi: 10.1201/9781003207573-12.
  8. D. B. Ferreira and E. A. Gromova, “Digital Evidence: The Admissibility of Leaked and Hacked Evidence in Arbitration Proceedings,” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 903–922, 2024. doi: 10.1007/s11196-023-10014-1.
  9. M. Sharma, R. K. Kohli, and K. Sharma, “Tomorrow's Shields: Exploring Future Trends in Cyber Security and Forensics,” in Securing the Digital Frontier, Wiley, 2025, pp. 367–385. doi: 10.1002/9781394268917.ch16.
  10. N. Alsaraireh, “Digital Forensics in the Age of Cybercrime: Challenges and Future Directions,” in Tech Fusion in Business and Society, vol. 2, Springer Nature, 2025, pp. 555–564. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-84636-6_48.
  11. P. Jain, P. Verma, T. Debnath, L. Heisnam, S. Chaudhary, and S. Balouria, “Cybersecurity Forensics with AI: A Comprehensive Review,” in Quantum Computing: The Future of Information Processing, Auerbach/CRC Press, 2025, pp. 170–184. doi: 10.1201/9781003499459-10.
  12. R. Stoykova, “A New Right to Procedural Accuracy: A Governance Model for Digital Evidence in Criminal Proceedings,” Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 55, Art. no. 106040, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106040.
  13. U. M. Mohammed, A. E. Omolara, O. I. Abiodun, J. Rasheed, O. Osman, P. M. Lar, P. O. Adeyinka, and A. G. Olugbenga, “Cyber Threat in Drone Systems: Bridging Real-Time Security, Legal Admissibility, and Digital Forensic Solution Readiness,” Frontiers in Communications and Networks, vol. 6, Art. no. 1661928, 2025. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/frcmn.2025.1661928.
  14. R. Stoykova, “The Right to a Fair Trial as a Conceptual Framework for Digital Evidence Rules in Criminal Investigations,” Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 49, Art. no. 105801, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105801.
  15. W. Shafik, A. Tufail, R. A. A. H. M. Apong, and S. Balasubramaniam, “Future Directions in Cybersecurity, Digital Forensics and Biometric Systems,” in AI Based Advancements in Biometrics and its Applications, CRC Press, 2024, pp. 238–263. doi: 10.1201/9781032702377-13.
  16. H. Zhang and X. Gong, “The Research on an Electronic Evidence Forensic System for Cross-Border Cybercrime,” International Journal of Evidence & Proof, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 21–44, 2024. doi: 10.1177/13657127231187059.
  17. R. Jain and B. Sonowal, “Analyzing the Procedure for Investigation in Cybercrime and Admissibility of Electronic Evidence,” in Cybercrime Unveiled: Technologies for Analysing Legal Complexity, Springer, 2025, pp. 265–289. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-80557-8_12.
  18. Singh and A. Raj, “Convergence of Digital Forensics and Intelligent Data in Cyberspace,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing and Communication Systems for Industrial Applications, Springer Nature, 2024, pp. 111–119. doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-5862-3_9.
  19. G. Tiwari, K. Pandey, M. Desai, V. Musale, D. Wategaonkar, and M. Bedekar, “The Legal and Ethical Crossroads of Artificial Intelligence in Cybersecurity and Digital Forensics,” in Digital Defence: Harnessing the Power of Artificial Intelligence for Cybersecurity and Digital Forensics, CRC Press, 2025, pp. 93–110. doi: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781032714813-6.
  20. P. Pappachan, N. S. Adi, G. Firmansyah, and M. Rahaman, “Deep Learning-Based Forensics and Anti-Forensics,” in Digital Forensics and Cyber Crime Investigation: Recent Advances and Future Directions, CRC Press, 2024, pp. 211–240. doi: 10.1201/9781003207573-11.
  21. R. Stoykova, S. Andersen, K. Franke, and S. Axelsson, “Reliability Assessment of Digital Forensic Investigations in the Norwegian Police,” Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, vol. 40, Art. no. 301351, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.fsidi.2022.301351.
  22. W. Malik, D. S. Bhatti, T.-J. Park, H. U. Ishtiaq, J.-C. Ryou, and K.-I. Kim, “Cloud Digital Forensics: Beyond Tools, Techniques, and Challenges,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 2, Art. no. 433, 2024. doi: 10.3390/s24020433.
  23. Ala'a Saeb Al-Sherideh, Samah Suleiman Al-Zou'bi, Fuad Alshraiedeh, Esraa Abu Elsoud, Suha Afaneh, Mohammad Rasmi Al-Mousa, Raed Alazaidah, Mohammed Khouj, and Ghassan Samara, “Digital Evidence and Forensic Tools in Cyber Law: A Comprehensive Analysis,” in Proc. 25th International Arab Conference on Information Technology (ACIT), IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACIT62805.2024.10877028
  24. Sachoulidou, “Cross-Border Access to Electronic Evidence in Criminal Matters: The New EU Legislation and the Consolidation of a Paradigm Shift in the Area of ‘Judicial’ Cooperation,” New Journal of European Criminal Law, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 256–274, 2024. doi: 10.1177/20322844241258649.
  25. F. M. Ibrahim, H. Alawsi, and M. N. Mohammed, “The Evolution of Cybercrime: Challenges and Advancements in Digital Forensics,” in Tech Fusion in Business and Society, vol. 2, Springer Nature, 2025, pp. 455–464. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-84636-6_39.
  26. R. Stoykova, “Digital Evidence: Unaddressed Threats to Fairness and the Presumption of Innocence,” Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 42, Art. no. 105575, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105575.
  27. M. Rojszczak, “e-Evidence Cooperation in Criminal Matters from an EU Perspective,” The Modern Law Review, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 997–1028, 2022. doi: 10.1111/1468-2230.12749.
  28. N. Allah Rakha, “Cybercrime and the Law: Addressing the Challenges of Digital Forensics in Criminal Investigations,” Mexican Law Review, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 23–54, 2024. doi: 10.22201/iij.24485306e.2024.2.18892.
  29. S. Sethu Laksmi, L. Das, R. S. R. Khan, and P. Chakraborty, “Emerging Threats and Trends in Digital Forensics and Cybersecurity,” in Emerging Threats and Countermeasures in Cybersecurity, Wiley, 2025, pp. 1–21. doi: 10.1002/9781394230600.ch1.
  30. Gascón Marcén, “The Push for the International Regulation of Cross-Border Access to Electronic Evidence and Human Rights,” Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 385–402, 2023. doi: 10.20318/cdt.2023.7545.
  31. J. P. Khatiwala, D. K. N. Addai, and W. Xu, “Evaluating the Reliability of Digital Forensic Evidence Discovered by Large Language Model: A Case Study,” in Proc. 49th IEEE Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), 2025, pp. 1067–1076. doi: 10.1109/COMPSAC65507.2025.00138.
  32. S. Dudani, I. Baggili, D. Raymond, and R. Marchany, “The Current State of Cryptocurrency Forensics,” Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, vol. 46, Art. no. 301576, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.fsidi.2023.301576.
  33. T. Thomas, T. Edwards, and I. Baggili, “BlockQuery: Toward Forensically Sound Cryptocurrency Investigation,” Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, vol. 40, Art. no. 301340, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.fsidi.2022.301340.
  34. ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC 27037:2012, Information Technology - Security Techniques - Guidelines for Identification, Collection, Acquisition and Preservation of Digital Evidence. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/44381.html.
  35. ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC 27041:2015, Information Technology - Security Techniques - Guidance on Assuring Suitability and Adequacy of Incident Investigative Method. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/44405.html.
  36. ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC 27042:2015, Information Technology - Security Techniques - Guidelines for the Analysis and Interpretation of Digital Evidence. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/44406.html.
  37. ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC 27043:2015, Information Technology - Security Techniques - Incident Investigation Principles and Processes. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/44407.html.
  38. K. Kent, S. Chevalier, T. Grance, and H. Dang, Guide to Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response, NIST Special Publication 800-86. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Aug. 2006. doi: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-86.
  39. R. Ayers, S. Brothers, and W. Jansen, Guidelines on Mobile Device Forensics, NIST Special Publication 800-101 Revision 1. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: National Institute of Standards and Technology, May 2014. doi: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-101r1.
  40. Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE), Best Practices for Digital Evidence Collection, SWGDE 18-F-002-2.0, Version 2.0. SWGDE, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.swgde.org/documents/published-complete-listing/18-f-002-2-0/.
  41. Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE), Best Practices for Computer Forensic Acquisition, SWGDE 17-F-002-2.1, Version 2.1. SWGDE, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.swgde.org/documents/published-complete-listing/17-f-002-2-1/.
  42. Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, European Treaty Series No. 185. Budapest, Hungary: Council of Europe, Nov. 23, 2001. [Online]. Available: https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/the-budapest-convention.
  43. Council of Europe, Second Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime on Enhanced Co-operation and Disclosure of Electronic Evidence, Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 224. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe, May 12, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/second-additional-protocol.
  44. European Parliament and Council of the European Union, “Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 of 12 July 2023 on European Production Orders and European Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal proceedings and for the execution of custodial sentences following criminal proceedings,” Official Journal of the European Union, L 191, pp. 118–180, Jul. 28, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1543/oj/eng.
  45. Government of India, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Act No. 47 of 2023, Gazette of India, Dec. 25, 2023. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. [Online]. Available: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/indiacode/handle/123456789/20063?view_type=browse.
  46. Supreme Court of India, Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4226 of 2012, (2014) 10 SCC 473, decided Sept. 18, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187283766/.
  47. Supreme Court of India, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 20825–20826 of 2017, (2020) 7 SCC 1, decided Jul. 14, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172105947/.
  48. United States Courts, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rules 702, 901, 902(13), and 902(14), United States, as amended through 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-evidence.
  49. Supreme Court of the United States, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), decided Jun. 28, 1993. United States Reports, vol. 509, p. 579. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office. [Online]. Available: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-509/USREPORTS-509-579.
  50. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923). [Online]. Available: https://www.mass.gov/doc/frye-v-united-states-293-f-1013-dc-cir-1923/download.
  51. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States v. Vayner, 769 F.3d 125, Docket No. 13-803-cr, decided Oct. 3, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca2-13-00803/pdf/USCOURTS-ca2-13-00803-0.pdf.
  52. Forensic Science Regulator and Home Office, Forensic Science Activities: Statutory Code of Practice, Version 2. London, United Kingdom, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/forensic-science-activities-statutory-code-of-practice-version-2.
  53. Q. H. Dang, Secure Hash Standard (SHS), Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 180-4. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2015. doi: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.FIPS.180-4.
  54. M. J. Dworkin, SHA-3 Standard: Permutation-Based Hash and Extendable-Output Functions, Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 202. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2015. doi: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.FIPS.202.
  55. S. Turner and L. Chen, “Updated Security Considerations for the MD5 Message-Digest and the HMAC-MD5 Algorithms,” Internet Engineering Task Force, RFC 6151, pp. 1–7, Mar. 2011. doi: https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC6151.
  56. National Institute of Standards and Technology, “NIST Transitioning Away from SHA-1 for All Applications,” Dec. 15, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2022/12/nist-transitioning-away-sha-1-all-applications.
  57. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism Standard, Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 203. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: NIST, Aug. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.FIPS.203.
  58. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Standard, Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 204. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: NIST, Aug. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.FIPS.204.
  59. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Stateless Hash-Based Digital Signature Standard, Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 205. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: NIST, Aug. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.FIPS.205.
  60. L. Chen, S. Jordan, Y.-K. Liu, D. Moody, R. Peralta, R. Perlner, and D. Smith-Tone, Report on Post-Quantum Cryptography, NIST Interagency/Internal Report 8105. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2016. doi: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8105.