Mobile and Network Forensics: iOS, Android Security and Cell Tower CDR Analysis
Published:
Questions
30
Duration
30 min
Faculty-reviewed
0
Updated
25 May 2026
Practice with national-level exam (FACT, FACT Plus, NET, CUET, etc.) mocks, learn from structured notes, and get your doubts solved in one place.
Published:
Questions
30
Duration
30 min
Faculty-reviewed
0
Updated
25 May 2026
Score, per-question explanations and topic breakdown shown right after you submit.
Free ForensicSpot account required to save your progress — you’ll sign in when you start.
This mock test covers the hardware and software security architecture of iOS and Android devices and the forensic analysis of cellular network records (CDRs), directly mapping to UGC-NET Forensic Science Paper II Unit VII. Key concepts include: the iOS Secure Enclave Processor (SEP) and its hardware-fused UID and GID keys; iOS Data Protection classes (NSFileProtectionComplete Class A through NSFileProtectionNone Class D); the Before First Unlock (BFU) and After First Unlock (AFU) device states and their impact on data accessibility; Android Full-Disk Encryption (FDE, Android 5-9) versus File-Based Encryption (FBE, Android 7+); TrustZone Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), Android Verified Boot (AVB), and Titan-M security chip (Pixel devices); JTAG, ISP, and chip-off acquisition limits on encrypted devices; commercial forensic tools (Cellebrite UFED Premium and GrayKey); and Cell Detail Record (CDR) structure including IMEI, IMSI, LAC, Cell ID, timestamp, and duration fields. Indian legal anchors include Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and Section 69 of the IT Act 2000 for lawful intercept, and BSA 2023 Section 63 (formerly IEA 1872 Section 65B) for CDR admissibility.
This mock is designed for MSc Forensic Science (NFSU, Panjab University, Osmania) aspirants, UGC-NET Paper II candidates, and working examiners at CFSL Hyderabad's mobile forensics unit who need to distinguish near-identical technical concepts under time pressure. Questions are calibrated to the hard difficulty level where distractors differ on exactly one parameter, such as FDE versus FBE architecture, BFU versus AFU state, or NSFileProtectionComplete versus NSFileProtectionCompleteUntilFirstUserAuthentication. The landmark PUCL v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301 decision on telephone tapping safeguards is tested alongside practical CDR acquisition and admissibility procedure.
Topics covered:
Sharpen your ability to eliminate near-identical distractors across hardware security and cellular network forensics topics. Allow 30 minutes.
Questions are written and edited by the ForensicSpot team and cited from peer-reviewed forensic textbooks, official syllabi and primary case law. Each one is verified before publishing. Detailed explanations show after you submit, so the test stays a real test. See a mistake? Tell us.