Cloud Forensics Utils
20260916 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on Cloud Forensics Utils's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Cloud Forensics Utils provides tools for forensics teams to collect evidence from Google Cloud Platform, Microsoft Azure, and Amazon Web Services.
image.ExportImage(
gcs_output_folder='gs://my-forensics-bucket/exports/',
image_format='qcow2',
output_name='disk-export',
zone='europe-west1-b'
)
cfu start_analysis_vm --machine_type 'n1-highmem-4' <disk_id>
import cloud_forensics_utils as cfu
cfu.StartAnalysisVm(disk_id='disk-123', machine_type='n1-standard-4')
cfu.gcp.compute.CreateDiskFromSnapshot(snapshot_name='my-snap', project='forensics-prod', zone='us-central1-a')
cfu.gcp.analysis.GetOrCreateAnalysisVm(project='forensics-prod', packages=['volatility3'])
cfu.gcp.compute.ListSnapshots(project='forensics-prod')
from cloud_forensics.utils import get_project_metadata
metadata = get_project_metadata('my-gcp-project-id')
Summary
Cloud Forensics Utils is an open-source library and CLI tool that collects evidence from cloud platforms for incident response, currently supporting Google Cloud Platform, Amazon Web Services, and Microsoft Azure. Its core is the libcloudforensics Python module, which implements the collection functions directly, while the CLI wraps those same functions for interactive use, so teams can either script against it or run it by hand during an investigation. It is built for forensics and incident response practitioners working across multi-cloud environments, rather than for general security operations or compliance reporting. It sits in the DFIRDFIRDigital forensics and incident response, investigating what happened during a security incident and containing it. The work includes preserving evidence, reconstructing activity and restoring systems. tooling space alongside other cloud evidence-acquisition utilities, filling a niche most general-purpose forensics suites do not cover natively. First committed in 2020 and maintained by 21 contributors, it has seen 15 commits in the past year, putting it in slow but active maintenance rather than dormant.
Cloud Forensics Utils provides tools for forensics teams to collect evidence from Google Cloud Platform, Microsoft Azure, and Amazon Web Services.
How Cloud Forensics Utils helps
Which disk should I pull as evidence without shutting down the running instance?
copies the target disk in the cloud platform and attaches it to an analysis instance, so the original resource stays live while the copy is examined
What did this cloud instance actually look like at the time of the incident?
exports a disk image that can be pulled down and analyzed offline, preserving the state without relying on the live host to stay unchanged
Can I run the same evidence-collection step by hand or from a script during an incident?
exposes the same collection functions both as CLI commands for interactive use and as library calls, so the identical logic can be scripted into an automated response
Which GCP project's resources am I actually collecting from when I have several configured?
takes an explicit project ID (or a comma-separated list for log operations), falling back to the project configured in the local SDK, and errors out rather than silently picking one
Where do the build resources for imaging an instance need to live relative to my storage bucket?
lets the zone used for the imaging instance be set explicitly, so evidence collection can be pointed at the same region as the destination bucket instead of a fixed default
What filesystem and container formats can the analysis environment actually inspect once evidence is attached?
provisions the imaging instance with added packages for filesystem and container introspection, extending what the analysis host can read on the acquired disk
Languages
Command line
No command matches.
| option | found in | since | description |
|---|
Values are placeholders taken from each option’s declared default. Nothing is executed here — the output shown is a recording of a run that already happened.
Score card
-
Shipping velocity releases a month, last 12 months
-
Documentation quality release-notes rubric, 0–100
-
Breaking-change discipline how rarely a release breaks users, and notice given
-
Maintenance risk quiet time against its own cadence, maintainers
-
Innovation & surface new capabilities, API and MCP surface
- Community health
-
Contributor trend distinct committers, this year against last
-
Maintainer concentration bus factor now against a year ago
-
Issue backlog trend issues closed per issue opened, 12 months
-
Responsiveness median time to a maintainer’s first reply
Nine scores for Cloud Forensics Utils, each built from the releases, notes and API history this site tracks — and, on Researcher and Business, where it stands among every measured tool in its category and how that has moved.
Score cards are part of every paid plan.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →Trajectory
Blank means never measured; nothing here is a filled-in zero.
Peer standings are included with Researcher and Business. See how this tool ranks against its competitors, using data we don't publish anywhere else.
See plans →Each score is 0–100 on a published rubric, derived from data this site already shows. A dimension we cannot measure says so — it is never scored 0 and never enters a rank.
How this is scored
- Shipping velocity — releases a month over the last 12 months, on a log scale where 16 a month scores 100. Needs 3 releases in the window.
- Documentation quality — the release-notes rubric published on the analytics page, unchanged.
- Breaking-change discipline — the share of releases carrying a breaking change (none scores 100, half or more scores 0). Only projects that label breaking changes are measured: a clean record cannot be told from an unlabelled one.
- Maintenance risk — quiet time measured against the tool's own release cadence (quiet longer than 90 days and three typical gaps scores 0), plus the number of active maintainers and whether contributors are growing, where known. Higher is lower risk.
- Innovation & surface — new capabilities in the feature ledger this year, API and MCP operations added, and the share of commits that are features: the mean of whichever we hold.
- Community health (open-source tools only) — each is a direction, not a size: contributors this year against last, the bus factor now against a year ago, and issues closed per issue opened, where steady scores 50, doubled 100 and halved 0; plus the median time to a maintainer's first reply (an hour scores about 100, a month or more 0). A commercial card has no repository and carries none of the four.
- Documented delivery (commercial tools) — when a vendor's documented new capabilities have slowed against its own baseline, that counts against the overall standing as heavily as two low dimensions. Steady delivery, or too little history to judge, leaves the standing alone; it is never a sixth score.
- Open-source tools are scored on repository signals; commercial tools on their published changelog. Ranks compare tools within one category and one profile and need at least five measured peers; the overall standing needs three ranked dimensions. Best-in-breed or consolidator is a shape, not a quality, and is never scored.
Release-note detail over time
See how much detail Cloud Forensics Utils puts in its release notes, quarter by quarter, and compare it with tracked tools in the same category. This history uses up to ten retained, reviewed notes per tool; sparse or blank older quarters may reflect that limit.
Checking release-note history…
Website history
adk.dev, every changeGoogle's 40 pages as they looked each month from August 2026 to October 2026: 79 renders, 1 change of tagline or palette. Step through them, play them, or put any two months side by side.
Website history is included with Researcher and Business.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →← → or h l a month · Shift a year · [ ] previous / next change · Space play · 1 2 3 page · T whole page · C compare · F full size
← → or h l the right month · Shift the left · S swap · W wipe · T whole page · Esc back
Rebranding timeline
Dates bound when a change appeared between captures. Possible rebrands are AI suggestions; a redesign alone does not establish a rebrand.
Releases
8 entries
No entries match these filters.
- September 20261
- May 20261
- April 20261
- July 20251
- January 20251
- December 20242
- January 20221
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in google/cloud-forensics-utils, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 5 +2 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 1 +1 joined · −1 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 1 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 100% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close 5.2 days first maintainer reply 5.2 days
- Open backlog 24 of 179 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 24
- Contributors / month 2
- Commits / month 3
- Stars 508
- other 100%
Counts from the project's public repository and git history; no individuals are identified. Maintainers are the committers covering 80% of the last year's commits. how we measure this
Libraries its release ships
What its latest release locks, checked against known advisories.None of its release's images build from a lockfile we can read.
Add the badge to your README
Maintain this project? The badge links readers straight to this page, so they can follow every release here.