Ethical Hacking Training at InfoSec Institute Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | RE: Tools accepted by the courts |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 23 Jun 2005 20:20:17 -0500 |
<< ANDRE SAID: For more advanced forensics, the best cert (certifications are KEY for court cases) is the CFCE... >> The CFCE is now available to law enforcement only, unless something has recently changed. I'm comfortable in saying the CCE (www.certified-computer-examiner.com) is now the dominant CF cert for the private sector. As for the tool debate in general, it's key to remember that the competence of the examiner is paramount. As is cross-validation. A point-and-click examiner (someone with no training who buys EnCase or some other tool and starts performing forensic exams) is IMHO vulnerable in court no matter what tools s/he may have used. There are many great tools available, depending on the task at hand, and as long as an examiner knows what s/he's doing and can demonstrate that satisfactorily to the court, AND if the evidentiary chain of custody has been protected such that the original evidence is still available, from which the probative evidence at issue can be demonstrably produced, I think the choice of tool is of little consequence. Despite the implication in some marketing, there are no "stamps of approval" from courts for certain products. The phrase "court validated" when referring to forensic software is IMHO pure smoke and mirrors. It's the EVIDENCE that's declared admissible, not a tool, and it's the EXAMINER deemed competent and/or credible, not a tool. If an auto mechanic testifies as an expert witness in an auto-related case, is more weight given to his testimony because he chose a Craftsman ratchet instead of a Snap-On? No. Weight is assigned because he convinces the court that he knows what he's doing. Jerry Hatchett, CCE Evidence Technology, LLC Computer Forensics, Forensic Video/Audio, Data Recovery Tupelo, Mississippi, USA www.evidencetechnology.net
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: Identifying seed file IP address in Exeem, BT and KaZaA, Brian May |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Tools accepted by the courts, Valdis . Kletnieks |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: Tools accepted by the courts, Andre Protas |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Tools accepted by the courts, Valdis . Kletnieks |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |