AccessData Have Made An Offer For Guidance

I don't think that this is going away anytime soon. Looks like AccessData aren't taking 'no' for an answer.
Anyone got a large wad of cash they can splash on Guidance? Now might be the time to do it.

What do you guys think about the statement that says that only those two has the courts "seal of approval". What do you think the result would be if you did not use one of these two in a court case?

What do you guys think about the statement that says that only those two has the courts "seal of approval". What do you think the result would be if you did not use one of these two in a court case?

That's a very interesting point. I guess the answer differs as to what legislation you're working under. Being a little cynical, I've always viewed the EnCase "it's been proven in court!" to be good marketing if nothing else. Which edition of EnCase was assessed? If 6.04 got a seal of approval what about 6.11? Or if it was way back with edition 4.22g I don't believe you couldn't reasonably say that version 5.x or 6.x can also be assumed to be verified.

I believe CF analysts need to prove the veracity of their results with each other rather than looking to a court with no technical experience and little technical understanding to do it for us.

I'd say use any tool as long as you've tested it prior to your examination and as long as it's available to the 'other side' to test your results with. Using at least one other tool to verify the accuracy of your findings (a.k.a. dual-tool verification) further eliminates doubt.

However, remember to check your local applicable laws first!

Clearly Mr. Kevin Buttigieg has not much experience and understanding of data forensics, _or_ alternatively he is ignorant of the tools used and their applications and inclusions in the various court systems. (Note this is not a slam of Mr. Buttigieg, only stating in my opinion he was dead wrong with his statement)

Courts don't approve forensics tools for use. There is no court seal of approval with respect to FTK, SMART, EnCase, etc. Peer review and sound forensics methodology are key for the tools practitioners use.

Many, many applications have been used the World over by analysts, practitioners, etc., none of which are the referenced FTK and EnCase by Mr. Buttigieg. SMART, iLook, FBCD, dcfldd, NetAnalysis, Volatility, F-Response, etc. The list is long and varied. Maybe someone who is a member of Reuters can contact Mr. Buttigieg and enlighten him (or find out where he was coming from with his statement).

Cheers!

farmerdude

www.forensicbootcd.com

www.onlineforensictraining.com

Guidance is hosting the CEIC conference this year… wonder if they have the funds to stay afloat.

Bare in mind that Guidance announce their Q3 financials today at 5pm EST. Is this good timing by AccessData or pure coincidence? If the shares tank again then their offer will start to look very appealing.

Clearly Mr. Kevin Buttigieg has not much experience and understanding of data forensics, _or_ alternatively he is ignorant of the tools used and their applications and inclusions in the various court systems. (Note this is not a slam of Mr. Buttigieg, only stating in my opinion he was dead wrong with his statement)

Courts don't approve forensics tools for use. There is no court seal of approval with respect to FTK, SMART, EnCase, etc. Peer review and sound forensics methodology are key for the tools practitioners use.

Many, many applications have been used the World over by analysts, practitioners, etc., none of which are the referenced FTK and EnCase by Mr. Buttigieg. SMART, iLook, FBCD, dcfldd, NetAnalysis, Volatility, F-Response, etc. The list is long and varied. Maybe someone who is a member of Reuters can contact Mr. Buttigieg and enlighten him (or find out where he was coming from with his statement).

Cheers!

farmerdude

www.forensicbootcd.com

www.onlineforensictraining.com

i was thinking of a similar rant when I read that