So, I went and looked things up on my own, in regards to my last post about being a little confused on Digital Forensics and Open Source Tools. Like usual, Google is your friend.

The search term I used was: “digital forensics open source tools court approved”, without the quotes. Which returned this page: https://www.google.com/search?q=digital+forensics+open+source+tools+court+approved

I think the best line out of everything I read was:

Saying that one tool is court approved and another is not, is like saying you can take crime scene photos with a Nikon, but not a Kodak. It’s just silly, and it’s a myth perpetuated by those who seek to benefit from the existence of such a rumor.

– The Digital Standard
That really does make sense. When you think about it, it is the person on the stand and their testimony that is being checked. Yes, methodology and procedure go with the testimony but why would one tool matter, as long as it gets the same results as the expert from the other side. Does it have to have all the fancy bells and whistles, or does it just have to get the job done?

One thing that has bothered me about the “No open source tools” argument is that DD for raw disk copies is acceptable. Most of the other tools doe the same work and then add compression or other bells and whistles, but really are based off it. So why is it O.K. to use some of the tools but not all.