[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <002501c59e23$0223c5f0$5601010a@p43400>
Date: Thu Aug 11 04:16:12 2005
From: full-disclosure at pchandyman.com.au (Greg)
Subject: Help put a stop to incompetent computerforensics
----- Original Message -----
From: <trains@...torunix.com>
To: <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Help put a stop to incompetent computerforensics
> Quoting Jason Coombs <jasonc@...ence.org>:
>
>> Somehow we need to fix this broken system and insist that all
>> computer forensics be performed with the help of a competent
>> information security professional, at the very least.
>>
>> Any other suggestions?
>
> Maybe we should start a certification program. And we'll charge $5000
> a year to be certified so only serious players will get certified. And
> we'll have roving "seminars" in all major cities taught only by our
> certified instructors. Yeah, that's it. And we'll rig the test so
> people have to take our useless classes to pass our useless tests.
> Then we'll dump press releases on every ZD rag out there and maybe pay
> a few CIOs and industry shills to comment on how, "hiring a 'certified
> computer corpse analyst' is the only way to determine competency".
>
> Yeah. That'll fix it. tc
>
What bothers me the most is that a lot of what I know - and I don't claim to know as much as most people here - isn't available as a "text" anywhere. You are interested enough, you work it out for yourself.
So, yeah, I could charge someone $5000 to be taught by me that which I know. However, compared to some it isn't worth $5000 while to others it is priceless.
Pick your target. An incompetent investigator is one who doesn't care not a newbie. A newbie is potentially incompetent and potentially the best thing ever to happen to this trade.
Don't stamp out newbies in the rush to stamp out knowledgeable lazy sods.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists