Of
Admin
(of 16/09/2008 @ 09:07:53, in
Computer Forensics, linked 207 times)
How do you measure competence?
In recent times there has been some debate about what it takes to be able to speak, teach or work in computer forensics and I came out to see different realities:
A) The Megalomaniacs: first only to utter the words "computer forensics" you must:
1) Having made a number close to the diameter of Jupiter and CTP CTU! Seriously is a number and it's always sometime .... maybe .... if you have deliberately made 5.10, 100 do not know ... there is always one that says that ... are few quality of these CT? Mha ... do not count ... for those of category A, are only the "measures" (we could rename the pornodivi). 2) You must be debated in court, again for an indefinite number of times, against the most formidable lawyers in the world, those cloned from cells of Bill Gates and Linus Torvald, with an injection of DNA of Perry Mason and a bit of DNA German shepherd, in short mythological figures or extremely rare.
3) You must have done years and years (always an unknown number) of apprenticeship with the great (big is too little) of the CF, in practice those famous four cats, which should open up a residence to accommodate all their apprentices. ah ... of course if you do NOT known to one coaching by Megalomaniacs, you have not done anything .... because even those who worked for years in the field is not nobody is not "recognized" by one of them.
4) You must have lunch, dinner and got a drink with an unknown number of PM! Attention not just talk to the PM, you almost have an intimate relationship, to be able to boast of a complete CT.
5) Finally, you have to have some international certificazioncina is completely useless, but it is so cool!
B) SURFACE: 1) Category widespread especially in Italy, they take everything, teach, take the CT, they do have a lot (to the delight of megalomania), but maybe do not even know what a code hash or copy and paste is not a "lawyer". 2) They always have something to do with these "very rare" (ironic) LAWYERS normal, they do not understand a club for Best Practices. and information and that their expertise does not ever complain. 3) There are many and often turn to megalomaniacs or scholars (a category we will see below) for advice.
4) tend to use the tools cf simpler and more expensive, but in front of words such as "offset", you look so puzzled. 
C) SCHOLARS: 1) Category uncommon, composed of people who have different computing experience, have studied a lot, using the best practices and the they have done or said has always been detailed and demonstrated or demonstrable. 2) They have little advice, not due to inexperience, but opportunities of life, but those few have always been made with all the trappings and quality. 
3) They have a passion for outreach, writing on the web, in forums, on magazine paper, maybe you self-publish and have a positive feedback from many people. 4) We generally do not say or write incorrect things (as human beings always are), but are attacked by the cat. A (megalomaniac), with no real reasons or technical / scientific.
5) Just the fact that he studied, wrote, made of the CT, etc.. distinguishes them from many other common information, not everyone can get published in magazines, although in certain limited fields semba be a normal thing .... They for the rest of the world, and many people are examples, why are so many information, but few have even a single CT or published anything.
6) Always have a great success when they speak or teach in public, always positive feedback from diverse audiences, are almost never attacked the facts, but always on a smoky concepts.
7) Their enemies are the megalomaniacs, the latter can not stand that someone who is not part of their tour, and admired, but have never even once been to dinner with Brian Carrier ..... but Scandal! Ah But if Brian Grundy Carrier or make the "pariah" compliments .... the megalomaniacal bulldozing over this ... ;)
CONCLUSION: The computer forensics
in Italy is diverse, is made from many different situations, often vary from attorney to attorney from city to city.
In the end, those in category B are those that are best of all, work hard, are shadows, they derive from categories A and C, and no one criticizes them.
Yes, because those in category A tend to fiercely attack those of C, but to give the pat father to those of B, that should embody everything they hate. But who knows what really hate those of A, perhaps those who hate becomes more popular than them and who does not REALLY hurt the work of CT.
I think if one follows, with scientific rigor and passion best practices, is always kept updated, it keeps on technical, CT will be a good, no matter how many bits of his advice .... do not ask for CVs .... and the experiences are always different! One may have done to try CT 100 JPG file deleted .... and another has made five, all different, all with difficult issues to be solved .... who is worth more? One may not have made even though a CT studies in its laboratories and simulates the most common case studies and the more strange in the end .... if it can extract data from a hard disk to a friend or our own laboratory (clearly applying the best practices), why should not fail during a CT? (I speak of a highly technical discourse) The method that is!
REMEMBER that computer forensics is a discipline and intellectual sport ..... training and experience will make studies, also from cases handled by others, does all of experience, maybe to use when there will be in similar cases ..... it's all in the mind, not muscle!
3) They have a passion for outreach, writing on the web, in forums, on magazine paper, maybe you self-publish and have a positive feedback from many people. 4) We generally do not say or write incorrect things (as human beings always are), but are attacked by the cat. A (megalomaniac), with no real reasons or technical / scientific. 5) Just the fact that he studied, wrote, made of the CT, etc.. distinguishes them from many other common information, not everyone can get published in magazines, although in certain limited fields semba be a normal thing .... They for the rest of the world, and many people are examples, why are so many information, but few have even a single CT or published anything.
6) Always have a great success when they speak or teach in public, always positive feedback from diverse audiences, are almost never attacked the facts, but always on a smoky concepts.
7) Their enemies are the megalomaniacs, the latter can not stand that someone who is not part of their tour, and admired, but have never even once been to dinner with Brian Carrier ..... but Scandal! Ah But if Brian Grundy Carrier or make the "pariah" compliments .... the megalomaniacal bulldozing over this ... ;)
CONCLUSION: The computer forensics
in Italy is diverse, is made from many different situations, often vary from attorney to attorney from city to city.
In the end, those in category B are those that are best of all, work hard, are shadows, they derive from categories A and C, and no one criticizes them.
Yes, because those in category A tend to fiercely attack those of C, but to give the pat father to those of B, that should embody everything they hate. But who knows what really hate those of A, perhaps those who hate becomes more popular than them and who does not REALLY hurt the work of CT.
I think if one follows, with scientific rigor and passion best practices, is always kept updated, it keeps on technical, CT will be a good, no matter how many bits of his advice .... do not ask for CVs .... and the experiences are always different! One may have done to try CT 100 JPG file deleted .... and another has made five, all different, all with difficult issues to be solved .... who is worth more? One may not have made even though a CT studies in its laboratories and simulates the most common case studies and the more strange in the end .... if it can extract data from a hard disk to a friend or our own laboratory (clearly applying the best practices), why should not fail during a CT? (I speak of a highly technical discourse) The method that is!
REMEMBER that computer forensics is a discipline and intellectual sport ..... training and experience will make studies, also from cases handled by others, does all of experience, maybe to use when there will be in similar cases ..... it's all in the mind, not muscle!
0 comments:
Post a Comment