There is an appreciable number of available, high-quality certification programs that focus on digital investigations and forensics. However, there are also many certifications and programs in this area that are far less transparent and widely known.

There’s been a steady demand for digital forensics certifications for the past several years, mainly owing to the following:

• Computer crime continues to escalate. As more cybercrimes are reported, more investigations and qualified investigators are needed. This is good news for law enforcement and private investigators who specialize in digital forensics.
• There’s high demand for qualified digital forensics professionals because nearly every police department needs trained candidates with suitable credentials.
• IT professionals interested in working for the federal government (either as full-time employees or private contractors) must meet certain minimum training standards in information security. Digital forensics qualifies as part of the mix needed to meet them, which further adds to the demand for certified digital forensics professionals.

As a result, there is a continuing rise of companies that offer digital forensics training and certifications. Alas, many of these are “private label” credentials that are not well recognized. Making sense of all options and finding the right certification for you may be trickier than it seems.

To help choose our top five certifications for 2019, we looked at several popular online job boards to determine the number of advertised positions that require these certifications. While the genuine results vary from day to day and by job board, this should give you an idea of the number of digital forensic jobs with specific certification requirements.

Cybersecurity is one of the most crucial areas for ensuring a business’s success and longevity. With cyberattacks growing in sophistication, it’s essential for business owners to protect their companies by hiring qualified cybersecurity experts to manage this aspect of their business. The best candidates will have a certification in information security and cybersecurity. This guide breaks down the top certifications and other guidance you’ll need to make the right hire for your company. It’s also a great primer for individuals who are embarking on a cybersecurity career.

Transparency is critical to our credibility with the public and our subscribers. Whenever possible, we pursue information on the record. When a newsmaker insists on background or off-the-record ground rules, we must adhere to a strict set of guidelines, enforced by AP news managers.

 Under AP's rules, material from anonymous sources may be used only if:

 1. The material is information and not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the report.

 2. The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source.

 3. The source is reliable, and in a position to have direct knowledge of the information.

 Reporters who intend to use material from anonymous sources must get approval from their news manager before sending the story to the desk. The manager is responsible for vetting the material and making sure it meets AP guidelines. The manager must know the identity of the source, and is obligated, like the reporter, to keep the source's identity confidential. Only after they are assured that the source material has been vetted by a manager should editors and producers allow it to be used.

 Reporters should proceed with interviews on the assumption they are on the record. If the source wants to set conditions, these should be negotiated at the start of the interview. At the end of the interview, the reporter should try once again to move onto the record some or all of the information that was given on a background basis.

 The AP routinely seeks and requires more than one source when sourcing is anonymous. Stories should be held while attempts are made to reach additional sources for confirmation or elaboration. In rare cases, one source will be sufficient – when material comes from an authoritative figure who provides information so detailed that there is no question of its accuracy.

 We must explain in the story why the source requested anonymity. And, when it’s relevant, we must describe the source's motive for disclosing the information. If the story hinges on documents, as opposed to interviews, the reporter must describe how the documents were obtained, at least to the extent possible.

The story also must provide attribution that establishes the source's credibility; simply quoting "a source" is not allowed. We should be as descriptive as possible: "according to top White House aides" or "a senior official in the British Foreign Office." The description of a source must never be altered without consulting the reporter.

 We must not say that a person declined comment when that person the person is already quoted anonymously. And we should not attribute information to anonymous sources when it is obvious or well known. We should just state the information as fact.

Stories that use anonymous sources must carry a reporter's byline. If a reporter other than the bylined staffer contributes anonymous material to a story, that reporter should be given credit as a contributor to the story.

 All complaints and questions about the authenticity or veracity of anonymous material – from inside or outside the AP – must be promptly brought to the news manager's attention.

 Not everyone understands “off the record” or “on background” to mean the same things. Before any interview in which any degree of anonymity is expected, there should be a discussion in which the ground rules are set explicitly.

These are the AP’s definitions:

On the record. The information can be used with no caveats, quoting the source by name.

Off the record. The information cannot be used for publication. Background. The information can be published but only under conditions negotiated with the source. Generally, the sources do not want their names published but will agree to a description of their position. AP reporters should object vigorously when a source wants to brief a group of reporters on background and try to persuade the source to put the briefing on the record.

Deep background. The information can be used but without attribution. The source does not want to be identified in any way, even on condition of anonymity.

In general, information obtained under any of these circumstances can be pursued with other sources to be placed on the record.

ANONYMOUS SOURCES IN MATERIAL FROM OTHER NEWS SOURCES

Reports from other news organizations based on anonymous sources require the most careful scrutiny when we consider them for our report.

AP's basic rules for anonymous source material apply to material from other news outlets just as they do in our own reporting: The material must be factual and obtainable no other way. The story must be truly significant and newsworthy. Use of anonymous material must be authorized by a manager. The story we produce must be balanced, and comment must be sought.

Further, before picking up such a story we must make a bona fide effort to get it on the record, or, at a minimum, confirm it through our own reporting. We shouldn't hesitate to hold the story if we have any doubts. If another outlet’s anonymous material is ultimately used, it must be attributed to the originating news organization and note its description of the source.

ATTRIBUTION

 Anything in the AP news report that could reasonably be disputed should be attributed. We should give the full name of a source and as much information as needed to identify the source and explain why the person s credible. Where appropriate, include a source's age; title; name of company, organization or government department; and hometown. If we quote someone from a written document – a report, email or news release -- we should say so. Information taken from the internet must be vetted according to our standards of accuracy and attributed to the original source. File, library or archive photos, audio or videos must be identified as such. For lengthy stories, attribution can be contained in an extended editor's note detailing interviews, research and methodology.

Today at the Open Hardware Summit in Portland, Alicia Gibb and Michael Weinberg of the Open Source Hardware Association (OSHWA) launched the Open Source Hardware Certification program. It’s live, and you can certify your own hardware as Open Hardware right now.

What Is Open Source Hardware?

Open Source Hardware can’t be defined without first discussing open source software. At its very core, open source software is just a copyright hack, enabled by a worldwide universal computer network. The rise of open source software is tied to the increasing ease of distributing said software, either through BBSes, Usenet, and the web. Likewise, Open Source Hardware is tied to the ease of distributing, modifying, and building hardware.

In the 1980s, there were no services that could deliver a custom circuit board to anywhere on the planet for a dollar per square inch. When open software began, CNC machines were expensive tools, now you can build a very good machine for just a week’s wages. We are currently living at the dawn of Open Source Hardware, enabled by the creation of Open Source design tools that have themselves been used to create physical tools. Inexpensive 3D printers, open source oscilloscopes, circuit board plotters, and the entire hackerspace movement are as revolutionary as the Internet. These devices and the Internet are the foundations for Open Hardware and software, respectively.  The objections to why hardware is incompatible with Open Source no longer apply and small-scale manufacturing techniques are only going to get better.

Open source is a moral imperative in the truest Kantian sense of the word. It is a good unto itself. Of course, this means open source is also mind-numbingly prescriptivist. Holy scrolls have defined dozens of different open source licenses. The relevant license for Open Source Hardware has already been laid out to define the freedoms and responsibilities of all Open Source Hardware creators. Open Source Hardware is a tangible thing, from a laptop to a lampshade, whose design is available so anyone can make, modify, distribute, and sell that thing. Native documentation is required, and software required to run this thing must be based on an OSI-approved license.

The definition of Open Source Hardware has been around for a few years now, and since then the community has flourished, there’s a great gear logo, and you can buy real, functional hardware that bills itself as Open Source Hardware. It’s become a selling point, and this has become a problem.

Many hardware creators don’t adhere to the definition of Open Source Hardware. In some cases, the design files simply aren’t available. If they are, they could be unmodifiable. The software used to create these design files could cost thousands of dollars per seat. This is the problem the movement faces — Open Source Hardware must have a certification program. Unlike open source software, where the source is almost proof enough that a piece of software complies with an open source license, hardware does not have such obvious assurances.

Software Is Closed By Default, Hardware Is Open And The Licenses Are Harder

All software is closed by default. Anything written is covered by copyright, and the developers of open source software choose to license their works under an open source license. Open source software, then, is a copyright hack, enabled because all software is closed by default.

Hardware, on the other hand, is open by default. If you build a device to automatically inject epinephrine intramuscularly, you must go out of your way to patent your device. Only a patent will give you the ability to license your work, and before that patent is published anyone can make their own epinephrine pen. If you build something with an FPGA, the code that programs the FPGA is covered by copyright, but an arbitrary circuit that uses that FPGA isn’t. Any generic piece of Open Source Hardware could be covered under patents, trademarks, and a dozen licenses. Therefore, an Open Source Hardware license is impractical. This is why OSHWA is not releasing an Open Source Hardware license, and instead creating an Open Source Hardware certification program. No Open Source Hardware license could cover every edge case, and a certification is ultimately the only solution.

The Open Source Hardware Certification Program

At last year’s Open Hardware Summit, OSHWA formally announced the creation of the Open Hardware Certification program. Now, this program is live, and the certification database will growing very, very quickly. At its heart, the Open Source Hardware Certification program is pretty simple — create hardware that complies with the community definition of Open Source Hardware.

The theoretical basis for the need of an Open Source Hardware license is the fact that anyone is able to manufacture hardware. Of course, there are limits to technology and no one has a 14nm silicon fab line in their garage. This is a problem for any piece of Open Source Hardware, and the technical capability for anyone to recreate integrated circuits and other high technologies is the sole source of the traditional objections to any open hardware license. Garage-based fabrication is always improving, though, but closed hardware in the form of NDA’d chips will remain a problem for years to come.

The clearest example of the problem with closed-source chips is bunnie’s Novena laptop. This laptop is designed as both a hacker’s laptop and an artifact of Open Hardware. Although most of the chips used in the Novena are available without signing NDAs, open source, and blob-free 3D graphics acceleration was unavailable when the laptop launched. This non-open graphics problem will be fixed with open source drivers, but it does illustrate the problem of Open Source Hardware. Even though chips might be available, there might be binary blobs required for full functionality. You can build an Open Hardware chip in VHDL, but it’s not really open if you have to use closed-source FPGA dev tools.

OSHWA’s solution to this problem is simply asking for hardware creators to act in good faith. The certification program won’t knock points off for using closed source binary blobs if that’s the only way of doing something. Open Source Hardware is just slightly more aware of the pace of technical progress, and what is closed today may be open tomorrow. Building a piece of Open Source Hardware isn’t an all or nothing proposal; just give your best effort to make it open, and technology or reverse engineers will probably make it more open in the future.

Of course, with any certification program, there must be some effort given to enforcement. If an Open Hardware project is certified under the program but does not meet the guidelines of the certification program, fines may be levied against the project creators. Again, good faith of the project creator is assumed, and a project found not in compliance with the certification program will be given 90 days to either fix the problem or remove the project from the certification program. After 90 days, there’s a 120-day period of public shaming, and after that small fines of $500 per month. The worst offender will get a fine of up to $10,000 per month, but that would require years of non-compliance, and it’s very doubtful any conflict with OSHWA will ever reach that stage. It should be noted these fines have a legal basis in the trademark of the OSHW certification logo, and if you don’t use the OSHW logo or certify your project, there’s nothing OSHWA can do.

The old Open Source Hardware ‘gear’ logo — unquestionably a better logo — will still remain in use, and no one is going will look down on you for using it. Using the trademarked OSHW logo, though, is the only way any certification program can be enforced.

The Objections To Open Source Hardware

Of course, the Open Source Hardware Certification program has been more than two years in the making, and that’s time enough for a few people to start having very strong opinions about it. A few years ago, Saar Drimer of Boldport said he won’t be using the Open Source Hardware logo on his boards. This is despite the fact that he loves Open Source Hardware, has written open source PCB design software, and offers a 20% discount on open source contract work. His reason is simple: adding a logo brings baggage, and building Open Source Hardware is not mutually exclusive with putting a logo on a board. Dave Jones is a big supporter of Open Hardware, but he realizes the famous gear logo is becoming meaningless through abuse.

You need only look back on the last twenty or thirty years of the world of Open Source Software to get a sense of where Saar and Dave are coming from; Stallman does not believe in a moral imperative to Open Hardware, whereas most everyone in attendance of today’s Open Hardware Summit does. Gnome versus KDE is nothing compared to the religious war we potentially face between various Open Hardware philosophies. The Open Source Hardware community is relearning what the open source software community learned twenty years ago. We can only hope to learn from their missteps.

But Open Source Hardware has a much bigger obstacle to adoption than politicking and empire building. Open source software is a simple concept — you have a (copy) right to whatever software, music, words, or boat hull designs you create. You can, therefore, give others the right to use, study, share, and modify that work. Physical objects and artifacts do not have copyright, they have patents. Patent law in the United States is atrocious, and just because you were the first to create a useful invention doesn’t mean a patent would be invalidated. This is the greatest challenge to anything developed as Open Source Hardware. The only solution to this is prior art and patent inspectors that know where to look.

This Will Take a While to Work Out

The Open Source Hardware Certification program is going to take a while to unravel. OSHWA doesn’t believe this certification program will be a repository used by patent inspectors looking for prior art. The legal basis for the certification is literally built upon every piece of intellectual property law. It is, perhaps, an answer to the most complex legal questions ever: what is property, what is intellectual property and can the concept of physical things be given away.

No one has an answer to these questions, or at least an answer that can be summed up in one-page FAQ. The Open Source Hardware Certification program is an attempt to answer these questions, and so far it’s the best attempt yet.

None of this matters unless the community gets behind it, and if another competing Open Source Hardware certification or license pops up, the community may very well migrate to that. Judging from the last thirty years of open source software license drama, we can only hope that the community figures this out the first time, and we hope this certification program is a rousing success.

Recently, I stumbled upon a cool write-up by [DHowett], about reprogramming a Framework laptop’s Embedded Controller (EC). He shows us how to reuse the Caps Lock LED, instead making it indicate the F1-F12 key layer state – also known as “Fn lock”, AKA, “Does your F1 key currently work as F1, or does it regulate volume”. He walks us through adding custom code to your laptop’s EC firmware and integrate it properly into the various routines the EC runs.

The EC that the Framework uses is a MEC1521 chip from Microchip, and earlier this year, they open-sourced the firmware for it. Now, there’s a repository of microcontroller code that you can compile yourself, and flash your Framework laptop’s motherboard with. In a comment section of HackerNews, a Framework representative has speculated that you could add GPIOs to a Framework motherboard through EC firmware hacking.

Wait… Microcontroller code? GPIOs? This brings us to the question – what is the EC, really? To start with, it’s just a microcontroller. You can find an EC in every x86 computer, including laptops, managing your computer’s lower-level functions like power management, keyboard, touchpad, battery and a slew of other things. In Apple land, you might know them as SMC, but their function is the same.

Why have we not been reprogramming our ECs all this time? That’s a warranted question, too, and I will tell you all about it.

What’s The EC’s Job?

The EC controls a whole bunch of devices in your laptop. Not devices connected to USB, LVDS/eDP or PCIe, because those would fall within the purview of the chipset. Instead, these are devices like power switches, the charger chip, and various current monitors, since these have to work correctly even when the chipset and CPU are powered off. But of course, it’s not just power management – there’s a whole lot of things in a laptop you need GPIOs for.

Generally, anything that you’d control with a digitalWrite or monitor using a digitalRead, measure through an ADC, or talk to using I2C – these are things handled by the EC. Thus, the EC reads battery state and charger voltages, drives the fans with PWM and takes temperature measurements from various sensors. The laptop keyboard is a key matrix, and the EC scans that matrix and processes key presses, forwarding the key events to the chipset that your OS then reads. Whether your touchpad is PS/2 or I2C, the EC handles it and exposes it to the OS, too.

Your laptop’s power button is connected directly to the EC. As a result, your EC is the first thing to get powered on; and if a broken laptop of yours has no reaction to the power button, it means the EC can’t do its power management job for whatever reason. In fact, if you check Framework laptop’s recently published reduced schematics, you’ll see that the EC has it own separate power rail coming directly from the battery.

How does it even talk to the chipset? For about two decades, ECs have been using the LPC bus – a four-bit wide bus superficially resembling qSPI. Apart from ECs, it’s only really been used by TPMs in the exact times. LPC uses frequencies from 25MHz to 100MHz. Thus, if you want to put a logic analyzer to your LPC signals and capture some packets, your typical cheapo 25Msps LA won’t do, but an off-the-shelf FPGA board or a way faster LA will work wonders, and there’s a pretty cool paper using LPC manipulation and an FPGA to extract keys from TPMs.

LPC is about two decades old, and is a direct successor to the ISA bus – in fact, in some laptop schematics from 2003 you’ll find the EC connected through ISA instead, but it’s all LPC beyond that. However, exact ECs talk eSPI instead, a qSPI-like interface meant to replace LPC, and the Framework EC talks eSPI, too.

Of Course, There’s Firmware Involved

Every EC has firmware, and every laptop (and desktop, and server!) has an EC. The EC firmware is nearly always closed-source. As such, the EC firmware is one of the binary blobs we tend to miss when talking about proprietary parts inside our computers. Often, the EC firmware is stored on the same SPI flash chip as the BIOS – other times, there’s a separate external or on-chip flash, in which case, you typically have an UART bootloader you can reflash your EC through. All of that depends on which specific manufacturer and model of the EC you have.

Often, your EC is built on something like ARM or 8051 architecture, other times it’s something more obscure like CompactRISC. The common thing is – at most, you’ll get a binary blob when it comes to your EC’s firmware. At some point, when Google got into laptop business, a group of their engineers presumably said “enough”, and open-sourced their EC code – which is what Framework has been building on when it comes to their own EC firmware. Last year, System76 opened up their EC code, too. Unfortunately, the situation remains dire for other laptop manufacturers.

Could your EC get backdoored? Not likely – it tends to be harder to modify and update EC firmware than it is to do the same with BIOS images. Now, could you yourself modify your EC’s behavior? It’s at least technically possible, and I’d argue that you should have always been able to do that.

So, What About Hacking?

Of course, with every subsystem of a laptop, you’ll find a subgroup of Thinkpad enthusiasts that have already dug deep and used it to pull off some fun and useful things. The EC is one such aspect, and they sure have something to offer – reprogramming keyboard layouts and removing battery locks, mainly. With keyboard layouts, they’ve managed to make older (and apparently more superior) keyboards work with newer laptops, with a tutorial talking about how specifically you need to insulate certain pins, and a super convenient way to flash the changes.

The battery part is more vital, however – you can more often than not live with a subpar keyboard, even on supposedly otherwise-stellar ThinkPads. The problem is the “genuine” battery check in the EC, which doesn’t let you charge (or even operate from) the battery if it doesn’t pass. This isn’t just limited the third-party battery options, in case that’s what it sounds like – such checks also prohibit use of Lenovo batteries that were just meant for a different kind of Thinkpad, but otherwise mechanically, electrically and electronically perfectly suitable.

There’s a video on how ThinkPad EC hacking unfolded, and I recommend you check that one out to see what’s up. Now, Lenovo didn’t seem to like that people were swapping keyboards and enabling use of third-party batteries that Lenovo themselves stopped selling ‘genuine’ counterparts for anymore. So, at some point, they decided to close one of the most comfortable ways for EC firmware updating, and release a BIOS update citing “security improvements”. The relevant CVE says this:

A vulnerability was reported in various BIOS versions of older ThinkPad systems that could allow a user with administrative privileges or physical access the ability to update the Embedded Controller with unsigned firmware.

If you ask me, this description is bonkers. This sentence essentially means “the laptop’s owner can flash EC firmware not approved by Lenovo”. I do wonder what led to it and what the possible justification might be, but in the end, whatever the reason, it’s a distraction from what I believe. That is, updating the EC firmware on one’s own laptop should be possible, and Lenovo closed a user-friendly way to do just that.

Also, without doubt, not all manufacturers respect your right to repair when it comes to ECs. As an example, for almost a decade now, Dell has been shipping their laptops with ECs that have encrypted firmware, keys fused inside the EC. This has been a particular problem for Dell laptop repair, as EC die every now and then. While you can buy a blank EC and reflow it in place of the Dell’s dead one, it won’t have the decryption keys Dell flashes into the EC at the factory, and therefore won’t run Dell’s encrypted firmware. Modifications are off the table here – it’s not even possible to source a fitting replacement for the EC when your laptop is broken, even though the chips themselves are abundant.

What Can You Do Now?

Now there’s three manufacturers that have open source firmware for ECs – Google, System76 and Framework. What could you do with this firmware, though? As with any underutilized area of hacking, it will take time to realize its full potential. Remapping keys is not the only thing – you could implement a 80% battery charge limit for cell longevity if your laptop’s manufacturer didn’t provide you with one, add extra layers to your laptop keyboard without any need for OS support, maybe tweak your fan curves. Or, indeed, you could add some GPIOs inside your laptop, for whatever sensors or buttons your heart desires.

You can also fix bugs, which crop up in ECs every now and then, and can be quite annoying to deal with – imagine keyboard keys getting stuck every now and then, seemingly randomly, and that’s exactly what happens when you have an EC bug. Bug fixes or improvements, just like with any firmware currently closed to us, we won’t see a slew of cool hacks starting tomorrow, but there are definitely cool things on the horizon when it comes to EC hacking.

To earn educator certification in Texas or another state, candidates must complete certain steps at their institution and apply with the appropriate state agency.

To become certified in one of the Baylor educator preparation programs, a Baylor student must first be officially accepted into the program.

• In the School of Education program for undergraduates, this process typically occurs during the sophomore year, before the student may begin the Teaching Associate experience.
• For graduate students, different timelines apply to those seeking certifications, so please check with the Office of Professional Practice or the applicable graduate program director for guidance.
• Different timelines also apply to students in academic programs that are housed outside of the School of Education, so students should check with the appropriate program director.

The Office of Professional Practice in the School of Education handles the TEA educator certification process for all Baylor students.

Important Documents and Process Descriptions:

CICRA Institute of Education will commence Certified Ethical Hacker training for the next batch on September 28 while its first group of Certified Ethical Hackers completed their training in Colombo recently.

The five day training programme was part of CICRA's objective to arm Sri Lankan corporates against the raising wave of cybercrimes worldwide. Trained by Krishna Rajagopal, an international trainer accredited by US based International Council of E-Commerce Consultants (E-CCouncil), these ethical hackers will receive C|EH qualification from the E-C Council after completing an extensive examination.

CICRA has been accredited to train cyber soldiers to fight against newest forms of cyber terrorism that could cripple national security interests and corporate network structure following a partnership with E-C Council, which in turn has been endorsed by US Department of Defense and the National Security Agency (NSA).

Under this partnership, CICRA will retain EC-Council accredited international trainers to coach and certify individuals in the specific network security discipline including security officers, auditors, security professionals, site administrators, and anyone concerned about the integrity of the network infrastructure in Sri Lanka.

For the first time in Sri Lanka, CICRA is running EC-Council certified combo training programmes in Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH), Computer Hacking Forensic Investigator (CHFI), Licensed Penetrating Tester (LPT) and Advanced Security Training in Advanced Penetration Testing (APT), Digital Mobile Forensics Deep Dive, Advanced Application Security (AAS), Advanced Network Defense and Cryptography Deep Dive.

A Certified Ethical Hacker is a skilled professional who understands and knows how to look for the weaknesses and vulnerabilities in target systems and uses the same knowledge and tools as a malicious hacker, CICRA Director Boshan Dayaratne said.

Computer investigation techniques are being used by police, government and corporate entities globally and many of them turn to EC-Council for the Computer Hacking Forensic Investigator (CHFI) Training and Certification Programme.

CICRA is also offering training in advanced security testing through the EC-Council's Centre for Advanced Security Training (CAST) that has been created to address the need for highly technical and advanced security training for information security professionals. CAST programmes stand out from others through their extreme hands-on approach. These highly technical lab intensive advanced security training courses will allow a participant to combat real life scenarios.

E-C Council is a member-based organization that certifies individuals in cyber security and e-commerce and is the owner and developer of 16 globally recognized security certificates. Its certificate programmes are offered in over 84 countries around the world.

EC-Council has trained over 90,000 individuals and certified more than 40,000 members worldwide. These certifications are recognized worldwide and have received endorsements from various government agencies including the U.S. Federal Government via the Montgomery GI Bill, Department of Defense via DoD 8570.01M, National Security Agency (NSA) and the Committee on National Security Systems (CNSS).

EC-Council based in Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA also operates EC-Council University and the global series of Hacker Halted and TakeDownCon security conferences.

The first group of Certified Ethical Hackers trained by CICRA Institute of Education completed their training in Colombo recently. Picture shows Boshan Dayaratne (Director, CICRA), Sandamali Silva (SriLankan Airlines Ltd), Sajith Bandara Thennakoon (Software Developer), Kanagarajah Krishan (Allianz Sri Lanka), Dhanushka Fernando (Seylan Bank PLC), Krishna Rajagopal (EC-Council Trainer), Suranga Sahabandu (Suntel Ltd), Nalaka Umagiriya (John Keels PLC), Dr. Roshan Hewapathirana (Postgraduate Institute of Medicine), Dr. Clive James (Health Informatics - Ministry of Health), Vasana Wickremasena (Executive Director, CICRA) posing for a picture following completion of the training programme.