That tool is rubbish!...or is it?

Digital forensic practitioners often utilise a range of tools throughout their casework in order to access, identify and analyse relevant data, making them a vital part of conducting thorough, efficient and accurate digital examinations of device content and datasets. Whilst their importance cannot be understated, there is also no guarantee that their functionality is free from error, where similarly, no practitioner can 100% assure that their performance is flawless. Should an error occur during an investigation, assuming that it has been identified, then determining the cause of it is important for the purposes of ensuring quality control in both the immediate investigation and for longer-term practice improvements. Perhaps anecdotally, a starting position in any postmortem review of an error may be to suspect that any tools used may be at fault, where recent narratives and initiatives have enforced the need to evaluate all tools prior to them being used in any live investigation. Yet, in addition, an error may occur as a result of a practitioner’s investigative conduct. This work discusses the concept of ‘fault-attribution’, focusing on the roles of the forensic tool and practitioner, and proposes a series of principles for determining responsibility for an investigative error.