The area of Digital Forensics has long been described as the process of acquisition, preservation, examination, interpretation and reporting of digital evidence (Carrier & Spafford, 2003; Mushtaque, 2015). Over the last two decades, the world has experienced a cumulative evolution in IT technology and cybercrime (Arshad, Jantan, & Omolara, 2019). The technology field has become very dynamic and the number of types of digital devices with processing and storage capacity in common usage, such as notebook computers, iPods, cameras and mobile phones, has grown extremely rapidly (Silver et al., 2019). However, the advance in the technology poses a greater challenge to the digital forensic discipline. The digital data which exists mostly in an intangible form requires the use of forensic software for analysis. Digital storage media such as the hard disk drive, the USB flash disk and mobile phones are the most common sources of evidence in cybercrime and the data stored upon these devices is only examinable by using digital forensic tools capable of interpreting it and presenting it in a readable format (Horsman, 2019). As a result, law enforcement agencies, as well as digital forensic researchers, are fully reliant on digital forensic tools during an investigation to provide an accurate analysis of evidence (Guo, Slay, & Beckett, 2009).
The rapid growth of the Internet in the 1990s was marked by the introduction of web browsers, which people used to perform different activities such as searching for information, joining online blogs or social networks, shopping online and communicating through emails or instant messaging (Herjavec, 2019). The ease of access and various benefits provided by web browsers not only attracted businesses and young people, it also opened a gateway for cybercriminals. Cybercrime is referred to as the act of performing a criminal act using cyberspace as the communication medium, such as computer-related frauds, cyber defamation, cyber harassment, child predation, identity theft, planning and carrying out terrorist activities, software piracy and other crimes (Arora, 2016). Web browsers are designed in a way that enables users to record and retain much information related to their online activities, which includes caching files, visited URLs, search items, cookies and others (Said, Mutawa, Awadhi, & Guimaraes, 2011). These web browser data could easily be retrieved by any user without using digital forensic tools, until the introduction of the web browser privacy mode known as private browsing (Horsman et al., 2019).
The two essential objectives of private browsing are to protect users from local attackers, allowing users to browse the Internet without leaving any traces on machines, and protect them from web attackers, and allowing them to browse the Internet while limiting identity discoverability to website servers (Aggarwal, Bursztein, Jackson, & Boneh, 2010). However, the introduction of private browsing has prompted digital forensic researchers and law enforcement agencies to seek different approaches to solve the issue of browsing content absence, even though private browsing is claimed not to be an anti-forensics tool (Horsman et al., 2019). Commercial digital forensic tools such as the EnCase, X-Ways, and Pro-Discovery have been utilised by many law enforcement agencies and researchers despite issues such as high cost, strict licensing guidelines and proprietary source codes (Reverchuk, 2019). Furthermore, open-source tools were developed to counter the issues. This research aims to assess and compare the capabilities between commercial and open-source tools in the acquisition and analysis of web browser data during normal and private browsing.