GDF Software for Image, Video and Audio Authentication
Forensic Media Analyzer Takes Authentication Beyond a Detector Score
A detector returns a percentage; a court needs an examiner who can say what a file shows and why. Forensic Media Analyzer gives GDF examiners one workspace to test images, video and audio for editing, manipulation, deepfake indicators, metadata and provenance, with every setting and model version recorded. It runs local models when the evidence cannot leave the building, and the conclusion always comes from the qualified analyst who signs the report.
The product
What Forensic Media Analyzer Does With a Questioned File
A detector score is not an expert opinion, and treating it as one is how media authentication fails under cross examination. Forensic Media Analyzer gives the examiner a workbench for reviewing file structure, metadata, frames, signals and the results of several detection methods side by side in one case record, so the conclusion rests on converging evidence rather than on a single model's output.
The software can run local AI models for sensitive or disconnected work and can use approved cloud or custom models when the engagement permits it. Results are presented to the analyst for comparison and interpretation, with the settings and versions recorded. The software does not issue an automated verdict, because the opinion belongs to the qualified analyst who will sign the report and answer for it.
Image examination
Review metadata, compression behavior, error levels, clone or copy move indicators and other image level evidence, and test each against ordinary processing explanations.
Video examination
Inspect frames, timing, encoding and temporal consistency for signs of editing, synthesis or recompression, frame by frame where the dispute requires it.
Audio examination
Review spectral, timing, encoding and signal characteristics that may identify edits, splices or generated speech.
Local model execution
Run supported models locally when the evidence cannot be sent to an external service, which is the usual condition in litigation and in regulated matters.
Optional model connections
Use approved AI models, including custom models, as an additional source of analysis, subject to the evidence handling plan agreed for the matter.
Analyst workbench and reports
Compare results, annotate the evidence and assemble a documented report that keeps the examiner's reasoning visible from observation to conclusion.
Is a questioned recording already in your matter? Describe the file and the dispute and an analyst will say which methods apply to it.
Methodology
From Questioned File to Documented Opinion in Four Steps
-
Import
Add the highest fidelity media available and open the evidence record with hash verification, so every later observation ties back to a known file.
-
Examine
Select the technical, signal and model assisted tests appropriate to the file type and to the proposition actually in dispute.
-
Interpret
Compare the results, inspect the inconsistencies and test ordinary processing explanations such as recompression before reaching an opinion.
-
Report
Document the methods, observations, limits and analyst conclusion with supporting images and technical output a court can follow.
Operating note
Why the Analyst, Not the Module, States the Conclusion
No single module proves authenticity or manipulation, and availability can change as models and formats evolve. A qualified analyst evaluates the file, its provenance, the case context and the competing explanations before stating a conclusion, and the report states the confidence behind each finding.
When the opinion has to be signed by a person rather than produced by a module, call (800) 868-8189 and talk the file through with the analyst who would sign it.
Visit Forensic Media AnalyzerRelated Proprietary Software and Forensic Services
Evaluate the Methods on Media That Looks Like Yours
Request the current evaluation build, installation requirements and documentation from the product team. Identify the file containers, codecs, duration, size and workstation resources your material will need, and agree which models run locally and which connections would send content outside the workstation, because that decision belongs in the evidence handling plan and not in a default setting.
Keep the original file and its provenance information, and record any conversion used to make a method run, since the conversion itself can create the artifact a detector later flags.
Record the application, module and model versions, the settings, the hashes and each test that could not process the file, so the examination can be repeated by another analyst.
Ask for a demonstration report that shows the observations, the competing ordinary processing explanations and the analyst's reasoning, which is the structure a court will expect.
Use representative authorized files to examine false alerts, unsupported formats and inconclusive results. A model score is not an authenticity verdict, and an evaluation should show you where the methods are silent.
For an illustrative recompressed video, the report separates container changes, frame observations and detector outputs, and shows which findings survive recompression testing. Current documentation and evaluation access are arranged through the product team.
Forensic Media Analyzer product and evaluation information
The fastest way to judge the methods is a demonstration report on media like yours, so request one with a nonconfidential description of the file.
Talk with an examiner
Bring the Questioned File to an Examiner
Tell us the media type, how it reached you and what is being claimed about it. A media authentication examiner will call or write back promptly to discuss local or approved model use and how the examination would be reported.
Global Digital Forensics has examined digital evidence since 1992, and GDF owns its software, including the media analysis workbench its examiners use.
Reviewed by Joseph Caruso, Founder, CEO and CTO, CISSP. Last reviewed .