All Activity

Just a quick update. 2FA has been added to Connect in version 2.4.2. More information can be found in the 2.4.2 release notes below. https://www.vound-software.com/docs/2.4.2/Intella-Connect-2.4.2-Release-Notes.pdf

Hello Phillip, Yes, this is certainly possible. The Intella 2.4.2 User Manual, section 26.5 ("Exporting to an Intella case"), explains how a set of items can be exported to another case. When you do this with all items in the source case, you are effectively merging the two cases. For safety, you may want to create a copy of one of the cases and then export the other case to that copy. Should anything go wrong, your original cases will then not be affected by it. Furthermore, we are currently working on compound case functionality. Whereas case merging/exporting actually merges the case databases (costing time and disk space), the new compound case functionality creates a light-weight case in which two or more cases are virtually and instantaneously merged. This functionality will become available later this summer.

Hi @Chris How far down the road have the "combine"/"merge" cases facility gone? I would like to combine two Intella Case : 1) Intella case containing Email depository and 2) Intella case containing Artefact post Digital Forensic imaging. Both cases have were initially reviewed by independent (consultant) investigators. As Case Manager, I would like to combine/merge the two cases (currently on two different harddrives) in order to search/review once (not duplicate my search effort). We have a subscription for Pro Dongle with three viewer Dongles. Alternatively advise a work-around because reading the user manual and or the community forum comments, nothing jumps out at me. Regards Phillip Lazenby

Hi, I am wondering if anyone can provide some guidance on how exactly shared coding layouts work. For example, I had assumed these worked more as a template and when added to a case it didn't have an affect on any other cases. I now see that when I update the coding layout (ie add a new field or new choices) in one case it appears to affect other cases. However when I delete a field from the layout in one case when I test I still see in others. Does anyone have documentation or more information on exactly how changes to a shared coding layout affects all cases that are using that layout? I can't find anything in the Intella manuals. Thanks.

Amazing Jon, thanks for the heads up on the upcoming adjustment to proximity searches. Many of us have been waiting a long time for this!

Hi, some good news, and not so good news. The good news is that we have actually improved proximity searches to do what you need to do. In this example I have searched for 'personal information' within 5 words of 'protected' and this is the result. The not so good news is that this is a very recent change and it wont be available until the next release (version 2.5). We are aiming for this release in September provided all tasks and testing has been completed.

Thank you very much.

Hi, I would start with the search for "contact list". I would tag the results, then run a proximity search for "wilson contact"~2 only over those results. The limitation is that you could get false positives with this approach. For example, there may be a document that has the phrase "contact list", which is respondent for the first search. But, that same document may also have the word 'contact' within two words of 'wilson' (e.g. something like "I asked him to contact Wilson...."). In this case the proximity search will have a positive hit on this, but, it is not what you are looking for (e.g. "contact list" within two words of Wilson). That said, I think this situation would be very rare given what you are looking for. And. it would be easy to review such a low number of false positives if they occur.

I had not read the two linked help pages at the top of this topic before posting. Is the following the best work around: proximity search 1: "Wilson contact"~2 normal include search 2: "contact list" Thanks.

I would appreciate some help getting around a proximity search limitation involving a phrase and a term. An example (one I was provided to search) is: “contact list w/2 Wilson” They would like all items containing the phrase "contact list" within 2 words of the term Wilson. Seems simple enough, but I can not get my head around not being able to use nested double quotes < ""contact list" Wilson"~2 >. Suggestions? Thanks BTW: I am using Intella Pro 2.4.2

Hi ifinch001, We are currently working on importing the RSMF files. Exporting to that format is something that we have on our radar as well.

Are there any plans to incorporate RSMF as an export format for Relativity load file exports? We have seen an increase in requests for this format.

Hi Jon, Thanks for your suggested method. I will try this out in the morning and if I need more help I will get in touch!

Hi Jonas, you could try this: 1) Ingest both PST files into the same case. 2) Search for all mail items in one of the PST files. Then, extract a list for the Message hash values of these emails. 3) Run these has values over the second PST file. 4) Tag the remaining emails that were not respondent to the message hash search. These are the emails which are not in the first PST. 5) Repeat the process but, create a list from the second PST, and search across the first PST to identify the unique items in that PST. Please note that this is an example only. I have mentioned only messages in this workflow. You may need to include other items such as scheduling items etc. if these other items should be included. Please run quality checks to ensure that no items have been left out or unaccounted for.

Hi, Is there a way to compare two PST-files from same user, to find what items are unique to either of the PST files? One PST contains 120,000 emails and the other some 121,000 emails. The reason for why they differ is due that the latest was exported by a more experienced mail admin! Is there an easy solution? And simply replacing one PST for the other is not a viable solution by the way... Thanks! Jonas

Hello, In the Content Analysis facet panel, create new category with a regular expression for your pattern ("New" button) Execute content analysis for this category on the selected items ("Process->Content Analysis..." in the context menu) Right-click the category name in the CA facet and select "Export values...". You can export the values list either into plain-text CSV or Excel format.

Vound is pleased to announce the official release of W4 1.1.2. For current W4 customers, W4 1.1.2 is available from the Downloads section of our website. You will need your dongle ID to download this update. More information can be found here: https://www.vound-software.com/software-downloads Users with a W4 1.1.x license on their dongle can use this version. If your dongle does not have this version, you will need to update your dongle using Dongle.Manager.exe which is located in the folder where W4 is installed on your system. For non W4 customers, for a limited time you can get access to a fully functional copy of W4 here: https://www.vound-software.com/download-request-w4 Please read the Release Notes before installing or upgrading, to ensure you do not affect any active cases. Highlights Added support for X-Ways images (CTR and E01 files). Added support for displaying HEIC/HEIF images. Stability improvements across all components. Release Notes W4-1.1.2-Release-Notes.pdf For additional information, please visit our W4 website website.

Has anyone solved this issue? Please help me 🤔

Thank you Jon - much appreciated

Thanks Jon - this works just as you say - consider this resolved

Hello I want the result of a search pattern to be placed as a value in a field. for example, I have 10 text files and I searched for pattern that like 200A***A**** to find the phone number and in each of these files a phone is discovered Now the output that I want to export is produced as follows: file1,200A123A1234 file2,200A123A1235 file3,200A321A3234 , ... thanks

HI Shaun, Note that you can increase/decrease these amounts of memory to get to a whole number like your desired 8GB. First drag the slider, then let it go where it is close to the number which you want. Then use the right/left arrow keys to fine tune the amount. Note that you need to actually hold down the arrow key to have the number increase or decrease. In this example I get 7.03GB when I drag the slider. But, now I hold down the left arrow key and the number counts down. I stop at 7GB.

This might be a bit of a first world problem, but it has frustrated me a few times so I figured I may as well put my hand up. I run Intella on workstations with 64, 128 and 256 gigabytes of RAM. I find the slider to set the memory allocation for the application and for the crawlers is completely fine on the machine with 64, but for 128 and especially 256, I find each step of the slider is too "coarse" - for example I may want to set it to 8GB per crawler and the options I get are 7.77 or 8.25 (not exact examples but you get the idea). I say it's a first world problem because I'm sure ultimately it may not matter much, it's just not as precise as I would like. Similar to the manual crawler setting where there is an editable text box, I would appreciate an editable text box for the memory options, so I can set the exact amount of memory I want. I wouldn't get rid of the slider altogether, just let both be an option? I may be getting a "proper" server with 512GB (or even more memory!) in the future, so I anticipate the issue will compound further with more installed memory.

Hi Shaun, We have created a development ticket for this. It should be added in a future version.

Apologies if this was already requested/discussed elsewhere - I did a few searches and didn't find anything. Going by the user guide, Intella is already somewhat aware of ADS, as it is capable of grabbing the zone.identifier information to show the URL where a file was downloaded from While not very common, people can still hide data in ADS, so it would be good if Intella could recognise such attempts at obfuscation.