Although I think GIAC/SANS GCFA is an excellent certification, I second to get a product specific cert under your belt.
Yes, CCE and CHFI are not as stringent as GCFA.
But I refuse to take GCFA because they require to take GIAC/SANS continuing education courses. In essence, one never owns a GCFA certification. One only leases it.
In my opinion, it is presumptuous of GIAC/SANS to think they are the only authority in forensics or security, therefore no other education would satisfy their continuing education requirements.
All that said, you still should get the MSc in FE. How else you going to get some groundwork for your PhD? D
CFCE has 4 practical problems, a research problem, and a written exam. I have heard the complaint before of some other certs only having a written exam and I agree generally that a lack of practical problems does devalue a cert.
My 2 coins of small value
Several of the certs require answering at least a few practical-based questions. (CFE, ACE, et al.) I'm seeing more job adverts list as a requirement that a candidate must possess one of the "well-known" certs. (EnCE, ACE, etc.)
A Master's degree will mark you as "over-qualified" for many, if not most, jobs unless you plan on teaching college courses, even if only part-time. On other hand, if you intend to go into private practice, having a MSc will earn you more credibility from attorneys and judges.
Earning a Master's *and* a cert or two gives you the best of both worlds. Also, if you are applying for a job, you don't have to list your MSc if you feel it may hurt your chances.
Since the courses are geared to the examination, I would recommend them. But there is an even better reason to attend courses and that is the opportunity to network, which can be invaluable.
Thank you all for your opinions!
Why Chose the GIAC Certified Forensic Analyst Certification Over Other Forensic Certifications?
SANS and GIAC constantly update the Computer Forensic course and certification information to keep you on top of current techniques, legal precedents, and methodologies used to solve crime.
We use real-world, hands-on incident and forensic scenarios to test your forensic analysis capabilities.
The GCFA certification tests not only law enforcement legal information but also a firm understanding of civilian legal statutes and requirements such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB), the Health Insurance Portability, Accountability Act (HIPAA), and many others.
SANS Certified analysts have a firm grasp of Electronic Evidence Discovery (EED) and how to apply their skills in responding to EED requests.
A cert is only as good as the knowledge of the people offering the cert, (if their knowledge is lacking then how can they certify someone) the material tested, and the overseeing of the organization.
I noticed on your website that you make the cert you hold to be
"Mr Patrick is also a Certified Forensic Computer Examiner. This is the most intenstive certification in the industry, and can take over 10 months to complete, and almost half the students fail to pass the course"
Not sure what intenstive is (might want to fix that on your site) but isn't that rather your opinion. You forgot to mention you can complete it in MUCH less than 10 months. Can take leads most to go to the far end of the scale.
I also noticed that you say
" Ensure you check the experience of your examiner, and not just their company. You may be dealing with someone who performs forensics "on the side" and may only have worked a few dozen cases"
Weren't we all at the point where we only worked a few dozen cases? How does that qualify or fail to qualify someone as a good examiner?
It seems like you are really trying hard to distance yourself from anyone who doesn't have the exact same certifications as you do.
CFCE has 4 practical problems, a research problem, and a written exam. I have heard the complaint before of some other certs only having a written exam and I agree generally that a lack of practical problems does devalue a cert.
I have many times on this board indicated my appreciation of other certifications such as the CCE which contain a practical component, so I'm not saying that no other cert is worthwhile, but I am saying that practical plus examination is the better way to go, and I'm not the only person here who holds that opinion.
As for your comments about my experience, how other than experience and training should one compare examiners when making a decision? There are a few guys like Harlan who have produced a book, and that demonstrates a certain level of competency, but generally experience and training is it. There are some guys who hold no certifications but who have years of experience, and I respect them based on that experience with or without a cert.
Additionally, different levels of experience come at different price points. Comparing an examiner with less than a year of full time experience as far as price points go is like comparing an associate to a manager. Many clients would prefer that their examiner has a certain level of experience, and are willing to pay an appropriate amount for that. Go look at the job advertisements out there and see how many are looking for more than a certain amount of experience, be it 2-5 years for a senior associate, or 8+ years for a manager. Experience matters, I have a lot of it, and I'm differentiating myself from others who don't have it. Part of marketing is about differentiating yourself from your competition.
I don't know why you felt the need to go after me personally, and over 2 weeks after this thread had died, but then I am willing to sign my name to all my posts so perhaps I made it too easy for you to troll me?
Didn't go after you personally, just made observations.
I agree with Patrick