Is the Digital Forensics/Computer Forensics community moving toward Government/private labs where all examiners will be civilian? And hold PhD's or at minimum Maters Degrees in the area?
We all know many Law Enforcement Agencies especially on the state and local levels (US) use officers/detectives that have demonstrated a knowledge/interest of computer systems and or networks. Their Agencies have built on that knowledge by investing in specialized training. Some do not have a 4-year degree in anything computer related, much less advanced degrees in the field. Some LEO examiners may not have a college degree at all.
Does the DF community look down on these LEO examiners because many only have certifications but no advanced education or degrees in the field?
Passing the exam and getting certification may make an individual eligible to work as Examiner. Since each case is a new case and examiner has to use his ability to solve the case, which comes from the experience and not by passing the examination. I think that's what LE Examiners have, so I do not think DF community will look down on LEO
this is just my view.. I may be wrong?
Unclear is the future. Always in motion is the future, but never in so much motion as presently.
All this IMHO, and others should feel free to disagree. I think we'll continue to see experienced LE having quite an edge on the "educated" examiner for quite some time. While I do believe that eventually we'll be able train decent examiners in school, I don't think we're there yet. As a profession we don't even have a decent job and task analysis available yet. There's no generally accepted certification (although a couple are making progress). There's no common body of knowledge – despite DHS's recent EBK on InfoSec. All these lacks are barriers to having a universal agreement on what ought to be taught. We (the training/education community) are to erratic in what is taught at the moment.
BTY, as an aside, I don't see a graduate degree as the "entry" level for forensics. I'd think a well designed and focused programme (program) should be able to teach the bulk of the skills needed. Ideally, all that would be left to learn by a student would be local procedures.
Some of the best examiners I know are leo. If they have a degree it's normally not tech related. What they do have is a ton of hands-on experience.
I do think we will eventually see a shift to civilian examiners in most government/leo agencies. I doubt we'll see a requirement for masters or doctors degrees though. Advanced degrees tend to be heavy on theory with very little hands-on training. What value would a masters degree provide over an undergrad degree?
What value would a masters degree provide over an undergrad degree?
I agree, in part, with this sentiment. Back when I was in grad school and studying chip design, one of the first things I noticed was that the guy leading development of the Pentium processor had a BSEE…that's it.
I think that what an MS degree does provide is (a) indications of the individual willing to do a bit more to obtain a better result, and (b) an opportunity to expand the individual's experience in writing.
One of the biggest issues I see with forensic analysis is a simple lack of methodology, such that there's little fluidity or consistency in the analysis, and entire areas are missed simply b/c the analyst doesn't understand it and has no desire *to* understand it.
While a good deal of this is, of course, based on the individual, obtaining an MS degree is an objective measure.
H
I know that I work with a lot of ex-leo and former government CF professionals and I have learned a wealth of knowledge from these individuals. They all have a ton of experience.
I don't think it is really moving towards anything (gov/civilian). I think there will always be two sides to CF Government and Private, and I think they are both very different.
The governement forensics is obviously going to be dealing with predominently criminal cases CP, Terrorism, etc. Where the corporate and private sector is going to deal with HR issues, Intellectual Property cases, and fraud.
I do think you will see the examiners themselves shift from one sector to another. I think you will always find CF examiners moving from the government sector to the private because that is just how it goes. They put in their time with the government and get the experience and then move into the private sector for the money or as a retirement gig.
I also can see a trend where CF procedures/methodologies are filtering from the government to the corporate environment, due obviously to the indivudals moving from the government sector to the private sector. I know our company looks to hire these types of individuals because they know they have the proper training and the experience to handle new situations and think on their feet.