Diary of a Computer Forensics Student

Reading this topic made me think about qualifications.

Speaking from my perspective* the whole idea of a certificate being enough to prove that you know your stuff is* or should be* subject to the same skepticism that some degrees are. You need to trust the content of each course I think. Of course* the different courses - be them degrees* vendor-specific* independent etc.* vary hugely - I guess it comes down to word of mouth and trust. The cert' sets a basic level of trust between analyst and employer - then the analyst proves him/herself.

Also* the impression I get is that the immense depth of stuff there is to learn about and understand means there has to be some on-the-job learning. I think it's fair to expect knowledge of certain technical things* as well as knowledge of legislation (RIPA* Acpo etc) - but we all know that from the blogs* journals* research and experimentation (even Twitter) that everyone in forensics is finding new techniques* artefacts* behaviours etc.

I'd appreciate YOUR thoughts on this. Is all the work people put into researching & experimenting worth more or less than the certs? Do they compliment each other? Is the italicised statement above true? What's your opinion of letters-after-names?

Post a comment* or natter at me on Twitter.

• IP Address
• |
• Email Blog Entry