Windows forensics
Event logs, execution artifacts, registry data, scheduled tasks, services, user activity, persistence and file-system metadata.
Digital Forensics & DFIR
Establish what happened from evidence that can be reviewed.
Focused forensic investigations across endpoints, servers, identity platforms and cloud services—designed to answer defined questions with traceable evidence and clearly stated limitations.
Investigative questions
Start with what the organization needs to know.
Digital forensics and incident response (DFIR) is most useful when the evidence collection and analysis are tied to clear questions.
- Which systems and identities show confirmed relevant activity?
- When did observable activity begin and how did it progress?
- Which accounts, tools and execution paths were involved?
- What changes were made to affected systems?
- Which evidence supports each material conclusion?
- What gaps prevent a firmer conclusion?
Investigation capabilities
Evidence across endpoint, server, identity and cloud.
The collection method is selected according to the investigative question, available telemetry, system condition and the risk of changing the source.
Server & endpoint analysis
Focused examination supported by endpoint telemetry, security logs, system artifacts and targeted forensic acquisition.
Microsoft 365 investigation
Sign-in activity, audit events, administrative changes, mailbox rules, application consent and identity evidence.
Active Directory investigation
Privileged accounts, directory changes, authentication patterns, domain-controller evidence and unauthorized access indicators.
Malware triage
Controlled examination of suspicious files for relevant properties, observable behavior and investigation indicators.
Timeline reconstruction
Correlation of timestamps across sources with timezone, clock drift, rollover and retention limitations recorded.
Evidence integrity
Collection records, integrity hashes, acquisition notes and chain-of-custody records where appropriate to the engagement.
Technical reporting
Source, context, method, confidence and limitations retained so material findings can be reviewed.
Executive reporting
Material impact, supported conclusions and required decisions explained without overstating the evidence.
Evidence map
Different sources answer different questions.
No single log or artifact provides a complete account. Material conclusions are normally supported by correlation across available sources.
| Evidence area | Questions it can support | Common constraint |
|---|---|---|
| Endpoint & server | Execution, persistence, file activity and local account use | Artifacts may change during cleanup, shutdown or continued use |
| Identity | Authentication, privilege changes and administrative activity | Audit settings, licensing and retention determine visibility |
| Network | Connections, remote access and communication between systems | Encrypted traffic and incomplete logging can limit context |
| Cloud & SaaS | Sign-ins, configuration changes, application access and sharing | Provider-specific retention and export availability vary |
Investigation method
Traceable from question to conclusion.
Frame the questions
Define what the investigation must establish and which decisions it must support.
Identify evidence sources
Map available systems, logs, retention windows and access constraints.
Preserve and acquire
Record collection details and protect source integrity using proportionate methods.
Correlate events
Normalize time references and compare activity across relevant sources.
Validate and report
Seek corroboration, state limitations and present practical next actions.
Potential inputs
Evidence sources depend on scope.
- Affected endpoints or servers
- Forensic images or targeted collections
- Endpoint security telemetry
- Windows and application logs
- Active Directory records
- Microsoft 365 audit and sign-in data
- Firewall, VPN and proxy logs
- Suspicious files or indicator lists
- Change records and response notes
Reporting standard
Conclusions should be no stronger than the evidence.
A significant finding should identify the affected asset, relevant time, evidence source, observed event, analytical interpretation and any limitation. Facts are separated from hypotheses.
Typical deliverables
- Scope and evidence-source map
- Acquisition and evidence register
- Hash and integrity records where applicable
- Correlated forensic timeline
- System and identity findings
- Confidence and limitation statements
- Technical report and executive briefing
Forensics FAQ
Common investigation questions.
Is a full disk image always required?
No. The collection method depends on the questions, the system, available telemetry, time constraints and the risk of changing the source. Some investigations require full images; others can be answered through targeted acquisition.
Can a hash prove that a file executed?
No. A hash identifies a specific byte sequence and can support correlation. Execution requires additional evidence such as process, security, prefetch, endpoint or related system artifacts.
Can every investigation identify the exact initial access path?
Not always. Conclusions depend on the quality and retention of evidence. Reporting distinguishes confirmed evidence, the most consistent explanation and alternatives that cannot be excluded.
How is confidential evidence transferred?
The public form is not used for evidence. A controlled transfer method and authorized recipients are agreed after the initial engagement discussion.
Next step
Need an investigation that answers a defined question?
We can help identify the evidence sources, scope the work and set realistic expectations before acquisition begins.