CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 591Digital and Cyber ForensicsInformation and Cyber SecurityEducation, Law, and Society

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guide to integrating forensic techniques into incident response

Open access
Kent, K, Chevalier, S, Grance, T, Dang, H·2006
DOI 10.6028/nist.sp.800-86
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Reports on Computer Systems TechnologyThe Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) promotes the U.S. economy and public welfare by providing technical leadership for the nation's measurement and standards infrastructure.ITL develops tests, test methods, reference data, proof of concept implementations, and technical analysis to advance the development and productive use of information technology.ITL's responsibilities include the development of technical, physical, administrative, and management standards and guidelines for the cost-effective security and privacy of sensitive unclassified information in Federal computer systems.This Special Publication 800-series reports on ITL's research, guidance, and outreach efforts in computer security and its collaborative activities with industry, government, and academic organizations.Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately.Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.6028/nist.sp.800-86

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 14 references

1 of the 14 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Honeynet Project. Know Your Enemy: Learning about Security Threats, Second Edition.
  2. Prosise, Chris, et al. Incident Response and Computer Forensics, Second Edition. McGraw-Hill Osborne Media, 2003.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–591 of 591

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kent, K., Chevalier, S., Grance, T., & Dang, H.
Affiliations
National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)
Publisher
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Published
2006
DOI
10.6028/nist.sp.800-86
OpenAlex
W2628759714
Cited by
590
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 24
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital and Cyber Forensics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
  • Social Sciences › Law › Education, Law, and Society
Keywords
forensic computing, digital forensics, incident response, digital evidence, cybersecurity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review