Validation of the Harmonized Mobile Forensic Investigation Process Model (HMFIPM) on Android Devices

Mutia Aziza; Muhammad Salman

doi:10.59261/jequi.v8i2.320

Authors

Mutia Aziza Universitas Indonesia
Muhammad Salman Universitas Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59261/jequi.v8i2.320

Keywords:

Mobile Forensic, HMFIPM, UFED Cellebrite dan Magnet AXIOM

Abstract

Background: The increasing use of smartphones has been accompanied by the growing misuse of mobile devices in cybercrime, making mobile forensics essential for identifying, acquiring, recovering, and analyzing digital evidence. However, standardized mobile forensic investigation models for field implementation remain limited. The Harmonized Mobile Forensic Investigation Process Model (HMFIPM) has been proposed as a structured investigation model, but its empirical implementation in an accredited forensic laboratory environment remains underexplored.

Objective: This study aims to empirically validate the implementation of HMFIPM as a structured process model for Android mobile forensic investigations within an ISO/IEC 17025-accredited Digital Forensics Laboratory.

Methods: This study applied a descriptive and implementation-based approach. Descriptive analysis was conducted through examiner interviews, while implementation analysis was performed by applying the HMFIPM stages to a Samsung SM-A075F device using Full File System extraction with Cellebrite UFED and Android Live extraction with MD.

Results: All HMFIPM stages were successfully implemented and mapped to the mobile forensic workflow in the laboratory environment. The model supported a structured, documented, and evaluable investigation process. Differences in artifact recovery were primarily caused by tool-to-method compatibility and application data architecture rather than by limitations of the HMFIPM model. Cellebrite UFED using Full File System acquisition produced more complete artifacts, while MD using Android Live extraction obtained partial application artifacts.

Conclusion: HMFIPM is feasible as a standardized framework for Android mobile forensic investigation. However, the feedback mechanism requires refinement. This study proposes an additional data acquisition feedback path alongside the existing analysis feedback path, allowing examiners to revisit the acquisition stage when new investigative needs arise.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Agustiono, W., Suci, D. W., & Prastiti, N. (2024). Analisis Forensik Digital Menggunakan Metode NIST untuk Memulihkan Barang Bukti yang Dihapus. Jurnal Teknologi Dan Informasi, 14(2), 174–185. https://doi.org/10.34010/jati.v14i2.12952

Al-Dhaqm, A., Ikuesan, R. A., Kebande, V. R., Razak, S. A., Grispos, G., Choo, K.-K. R., Al-Rimy, B. A. S., & Alsewari, A. A. (2021). Digital Forensics Subdomains: The State of the Art and Future Directions. IEEE Access, 9, 152476–152502. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3124262

Banesinh, V. J. (2025). Detection of Cyber Crimes via Digital Forensic Artifacts. Gujarat Technological University.

Cuomo, R., D’Agostino, D., & Ianulardo, M. (2022). Mobile Forensics: Repeatable and Non-Repeatable Technical Assessments. Sensors, 22(18), 7096. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22187096

El Majdoub, A., Saadi, C., & Chaoui, H. (2022). Mobile Forensics Data Acquisition. ITM Web of Conferences, 46, 02006. https://doi.org/10.1051/itmconf/20224602006

Femi-Adeyinka, C., Kose, N. A., Akinsowon, T., & Varol, C. (2024). Digital Forensics Analysis of YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok on Android Devices: A Comparative Study. 2024 12th International Symposium on Digital Forensics and Security (ISDFS), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISDFS60797.2024.10527244

Fukami, A., Stoykova, R., & Geradts, Z. (2021). A new model for forensic data extraction from encrypted mobile devices. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 38, 301169.

Haluszka, E., & Mansour, A. (2023). A comparative review of ISO standards for digital forensics laboratory accreditation.

Hamad, N., & Eleyan, D. (2022). Digital forensics tools used in cybercrime investigation-comparative analysis. Journal of Xiʼa University of Architecture & Technology, 4, 113–127.

Jawad, M., Nadeem, M. S. A., Shim, S.-O., Khan, I. R., Shaheen, A., Habib, N., Hussain, L., & Aziz, W. (2020). Machine Learning Based Cost Effective Electricity Load Forecasting Model Using Correlated Meteorological Parameters. IEEE Access, 8, 146847–146864. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3014086

Knox, S., Moghadam, S., Patrick, K., Phan, A., & Choo, K.-K. R. (2020). What’s really ‘Happning’? A forensic analysis of Android and iOS Happn dating apps. Computers & Security, 94, 101833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2020.101833

Mahajan, A., S. Dahiya, M., & P. Sanghvi, H. (2013). Forensic Analysis of Instant Messenger Applications on Android Devices. International Journal of Computer Applications, 68(8), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.5120/11602-6965

Millatina, D., Gunawan, E. H., & Sugiantoro, B. (2024). Forensic Analysis of WhatsApp, Instagram, and Telegram on Virtual Android Device. 2024 12th International Symposium on Digital Forensics and Security (ISDFS), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISDFS60797.2024.10527308

Nath, S., Summers, K., Baek, J., & Ahn, G.-J. (2024). Digital Evidence Chain of Custody: Navigating New Realities of Digital Forensics. 2024 IEEE 6th International Conference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Intelligent Systems, and Applications (TPS-ISA), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPS-ISA62245.2024.00012

Parhad, O., & Naik, V. (2023). Comparative analysis of Data Extraction for Qualcomm based android devices. 2023 14th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCNT56998.2023.10307241

Riadi, I., Yudhana, A., Pramuja, G., & Fanani, I. (2023). Mobile Forensic Tools for Digital Crime Investigation: Comparison and Evaluation. International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering, 13(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsse.130102

Şen, S., & Artuner, H. (2025). Emulator Forensics Investigation Model (EFIM). IEEE Access.

Sharma, Y. K., Noval, S. S., Jain, A., Sabitha, B., & Ramya, T. (2022). Forensics-as-a-service: A Review of Mobile Forensics. 2022 5th International Conference on Contemporary Computing and Informatics (IC3I), 486–491. https://doi.org/10.1109/IC3I56241.2022.10072726

Shetty, A. A., & Trevorrow, P. (2026). Digital Forensic Investigation of Wearable Android Fitness Applications. Journal of Applied Security Research, 21(1), 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361610.2025.2562398

Sinaga, S. J., Asykar, M. A., Manurung, H., Wibowo, W. C., Yazid, S., & Edwardo, T. O. (2026). Comparative evaluation of artifact extraction performance and usability in digital forensic tools: A study of Cellebrite UFED, MSAB XRY, and Magnet AXIOM. Journal of Forensic Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.70320

Singh, A., Ikuesan, R. A., & Venter, H. (2022). Secure Storage Model for Digital Forensic Readiness. IEEE Access, 10, 19469–19480. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3151403

Son, J., Kim, Y. W., Oh, D. Bin, & Kim, K. (2022). Forensic analysis of instant messengers: Decrypt Signal, Wickr, and Threema. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2022.301347

Sutikno, T. (2024). Mobile forensics tools and techniques for digital crime investigation: a comprehensive review. International Journal of Informatics and Communication Technology (IJ-ICT), 13(2), 321–332.