Should DF Be Separated from IR?

Digital Forensics and Incident Response (DFIR) is a term frequently used in the cybersecurity world, often without fully understanding the distinct roles of Digital Forensics (DF) and Incident Response (IR). While these fields share tools, training, and processes, their end goals and mindsets are fundamentally different—and that’s crucial.

As far as where I think DFIR sits under the cybersecurity umbrella, I’d rank it as a Tier 1 unit in cybersecurity just as SEAL Team 6 or Delta Force is to the US military. Not more important than any other cyber role, just more highly skill focused.

The Precise Definition of Forensics

“Forensics” specifically refers to applying scientific and technical methods to investigate crimes and present evidence in court. It comes from the Latin word forensis, meaning “of the forum”—the courts of ancient Rome. In Digital Forensics, this means using scientific methods to collect, preserve, analyze, and present digital evidence with the intent of supporting legal proceedings, whether for criminal cases, civil lawsuits, or other legal contexts.

Incident Response is Not Forensics

Incident Response, on the other hand, is about managing and mitigating security incidents. It involves responding to cyberattacks, identifying breaches, containing threats, and restoring systems. While IR might use techniques similar to Digital Forensics, like log examination, malware analysis, and intrusion investigation, the goal is not to build a legal case but to quickly restore normalcy and secure systems. Though IR can sometimes lead to legal proceedings, its primary objective remains operational recovery, not the legal scrutiny of evidence.

One important aspect, I must say, is that neither DF nor IR practitioners are more skilled than the other. Both roles are highly skilled; they just have different goals to begin with and occasionally cross paths in their engagements.

Analogies to Clarify the Distinction

• Firefighters vs. Fire Investigators: Firefighters extinguish fires to protect life and property without concern for evidence. Fire investigators, however, are focused on collecting evidence to determine the cause of the fire, especially if a crime is suspected.
• ER Doctors vs. Medical Examiners: ER doctors work to save lives without regard for evidence. In contrast, medical examiners investigate deaths to establish cause and potential criminal involvement, aiming to provide court-admissible findings.

These examples illustrate two different mindsets with distinct objectives: one focused on immediate action and the other on legal accountability.

Blurring the Lines and Watering Down Forensics

The problem arises when we blur the lines between DF and IR, effectively watering down the term “forensics.” When “forensics” is used to describe any digital investigation, its specific legal connotation is lost. This dilution erodes the rigor and standards of evidence handling that define true forensic work.

Misusing the term can mislead people about the field’s purpose and undermine credibility, especially if evidence gathered in an IR context is mistakenly thought to be ready for court without adhering to forensic protocols.

Newcomers Are Being Misled

The mislabeling of these fields doesn’t just confuse terminology; it misleads newcomers. Many people new to DFIR may mistakenly believe that IR and DF are interchangeable, leading them into roles or training that do not align with their goals. I’ve personally experienced this when I applied for what was advertised as a Digital Forensics position. Despite the job announcement accurately describing forensic work, the actual role was focused on IR. It wasn’t the job I wanted, and they likely didn’t want me either—highlighting the disconnect that can occur when these fields are conflated.

Touching something may or may not be forensics

Here is a overly broad example of touching data may or may not be forensics using a screwdriver as an analogy.

Scenario 1: If I pick up a screwdriver off the sidewalk, preserving fingerprints, and appropriately bagging and tagging it with forensically sound principles and procedures as if it were evidence, is that considered “forensics?”

Scenario 2: If I pick up a screwdriver from a murder scene, preserving fingerprints, and appropriately bagging and tagging it with forensically sound principles and procedures as if it were evidence, is that considered “forensics?”

Both scenarios would be considered forensically sound but only one is actual forensics (Scenario 2). If, in Scenario 1, the screwdriver was found to have been evidence in a murder, then the forensically sound method used would support the screwdriver being admitted as forensic evidence in a legal proceeding.

This applies to touching data.  Are you touching it to fix it? Or are you touching it as potential evidence that will affect one’s life, liberty, or property?

What Should We Call It Instead?

To maintain clarity, we should use the correct terms for the correct contexts:

• Digital Forensics (DF): For investigations intended to provide evidence for legal proceedings.
• Incident Response (IR): For responding to cybersecurity incidents with a focus on recovery, not evidence collection for court.
• Digital Analysis or Examination: For examining data without the legal requirements of forensics, a neutral term that avoids the legal implications of “forensics.”

If We Replace “Forensics,” Then What?

I don’t believe that we should re-label DFIR. There are many who work both roles, and at times, one morphs into the other on certain engagements or incidents. Our tools, procedures, and principles also overlap in many areas.

But using these terms accurately helps preserve the integrity of our language and maintains “forensics” as a term specifically tied to legal evidence handling. Misusing “forensics” risks making it meaningless and obscures the essential distinctions between roles. Precise language helps us communicate effectively and ensures that newcomers understand the path they are pursuing.

Digital Forensics is about legal accountability; Incident Response is about immediate security and recovery. Both are vital, but they are not the same. By respecting these boundaries, we maintain the strength and clarity of our field and uphold the standards that give Digital Forensics its credibility in the courtroom. It is precise to state “I used legally and forensically sound principles in my IR engagement” even if not a legal matter.  It would be inaccurate to state “I did forensics in my IR engagement” if it were not a legal matter.

Is there a divergence between DF and IR?

Harlan Carvey’s LinkedIn post inspired this post, and I believe that there is a divergence. I think the gap will grow wider as well. I think if we take a step back, we can more clearly see dramatic differences between DF and IR, and specifically regarding “forensics.”

If a new person is shown a table like below, I don’t see how they can consider both of these roles to be the same, ie “DFIR” yet I have spoken to a dozen+ university students in cyber programs who had no idea of the DF or IR path they were on.

Training

Some training is the same.  Much is not.  Read through the SANS course abstracts below as an example. You can see that FOR500 is forensic focused, and Cloud Security is not. Yet, a newcomer (and not-so-new-newcomers) might assume both are DF (or both IR) when both are presented under the same DFIR umbrella.

Tools

The DFIR tools are also a point of divergence. DF is not generally time-sensitive, and it requires deep documentation, repeatability of processes, peer-review, and corroboration of facts. IR depends on speed to fix problems.  The tools are designed to meet different needs.

Some tools can do both aspects, but if a DFer and an IRer have coffee together to talk about all of their tools, it will be two different languages being spoken at times.  Even the same tool will be used differently for different purposes.

Closing

I close with my opinion on keeping the term forensics as it should be used and not watered down to meaninglessness. Too many words lose their meaning, only to be replaced by imprecise words that lessen communication. This makes human resources work more confusing to fill spots and may give a false sense of skills to some working in only one half of the DFIR acronym when they think they can do both equally well.

We (all my DFIR buddies) all work under the Cybersecurity umbrella, and subsequently under the smaller DFIR umbrella. Our roles diverge here, not in scope or skill level, but in objectives and intentions.

Also, I think Digital Forensics is the Delta Force of cyber, because acronyms.

Some “forensic” references

Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forensic
: belonging to, used in, or suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate

Cambridge: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/forensic  related to scientific methods of solving crimes, involving examining the objects or substances that are involved in the crime

Collins: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/forensic

Forensic is used to describe the work of scientists who examine evidence in order to help the police solve crimes.

SWGDE: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OBux0n7VZQe7HSgObwAtmhz5LgwvX0oY/view?pli=1

Digital forensics as a science is the process used to acquire, preserve, analyze, and report on electronically stored information using scientific methods that are demonstrably reliable, verifiable, and repeatable, such that they may be used in judicial and other formal proceedings.

NIST: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2020/NIST.IR.8006.pdf

The process used to acquire, preserve, analyze, and report on evidence using scientific methods that are demonstrably reliable, accurate, and repeatable such that it may be used in judicial proceedings