Yes, excellent review! Thank you for sharing and congratulations!

Well I'm glad these guys remembered because I sure didn't. I just remember it being very quick.

Good luck on your test!

Looks like it was a problem installing/upgrading from v4 to v5 (Windows x64).

For whatever reason, I had to fully uninstall and reinstall. The new stuff in v5 is to setup a user within the web interface and also do the activation there. I had no problems with the fresh install.

Anyone else have this problem registering a home feed?

I think this may have changed slightly but this CEH v8 blueprint is publicly available on EC-Council's website:

https://cert.eccouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/CEHv8-Exam-Blueprint-v1.1-17012012.pdf

https://cert.eccouncil.org/

Yeah, will be interesting regardless. Whatever article I read said Fox ordered 13 episodes.

And to answer your final question...

If they do it correctly, this could be a significant improvement.

I can tell you that I've been involved in a lot of the exam development process since back in October of 2010. The exam itself will be a better reflection of the skill set and knowledge required for this type of certification. It's up to EC-Council to do the same with the courseware (unless they outsource or contract some other people to write it).

I think it should be treated like any other new certification. Personally, I'd be hesitant to jump to anything new until it's been vetted by someone I know or respect.

I don't disagree that they have work to do. They know they have work to do. What takes so long, I have no idea.

I know we've seen posts about problems with instructors. I can't disagree there either. My own CEH instructor was horrible when I took the course. The guys recognized as Master Instructors that I know, are good at what they do and I'd happily sit in their course. How many are out there? Not a clue. Are there some designated as Master Instructors that truly don't know what they're doing? Again, I'm not sure but it wouldn't surprise me. We all know that the experience and ability of the instructor can easily make or break a class though.


My experience with iLabs was similar to what DragonGorge posted. Keep in mind I went through this about a year ago before iLabs was actually rolled out so I don't know if anything has changed (and it's hard to remember all the details).

You basically access the system and reserve a block of time for doing your labs. The system then configures your virtual network for use. It consists of several different systems - I want to say 5 but I can't remember what all they were (Windows 2008, Windows 7, BackTrack and there may have been a second 2008 box).

The instructions are similar to what was pointed out. At the beginning they give you some type of overview or scenario about when/why you might use the tool(s) in the lab. You are then told about the environment and which systems you will be using for the lab (W2K8, W7, BT, etc.). After that it walks you step-by-step through installing and running the tool. As DragonGorge mentioned, the labs only go so deep into the tool. They get you up and running and show you the basic functionality - it's left to you to explore the tool in greater detail and play within the lab. I believe they add some 'additional tasks' at the end of the lab or ask you questions about using the tool in other scenarios. Again, this is where it's up to the student to go the extra distance and do these tasks.

If there are any targets required, the lab will tell you that you need multiple machines and you will use one to attack the other (e.g., the BT system attacking the W2K8 system). There are no end-to-end exercises as pointed out but probably should be.

When working through the lab guides, there were spelling/grammar mistakes, wrong names of virtual systems, wrong systems selected, or stuff that just didn't work. I fixed the simple spelling/grammar errors, renamed the virtual systems (apparently the systems in the class are slightly different than iLabs, which would certainly cause confusion), and basically made sure the lab worked. If there were missing instructions I would add them or if something wasn't needed I removed it. For a couple of labs, I remember rewriting large portions. I wasn't responsible for creating or selecting the labs, just making sure they worked.

When I was finished and turned everything back into ECC, everything was accurate and worked fine. What happened after that (whether they accepted all my changes, changed systems, changed/added labs), I have no idea.

Yes, this is an old thread. But has anyone else seen commercials on Fox announcing the season premiere of Breaking In (re)starting soon? Seems odd comsidering the attempted launch a year ago failed, and it never made it for a full season.

I can't speak for the courseware but the exam itself has been completely redesigned from the ground up. Things that a CEH-level person should know are included and things that are irrelevant have been removed.

That being said, objectives will have to be changed which should mean that courseware has to follow suit.

If that's the case, then v6 and v7 study guides will not be as valuable to the v8 exam as v6 guides were to v7.

The whole push for the new version revolves around ANSI accreditation. The exam was developed per their standards. I don't know if they set standards for the courseware as well or not. Anyone that passes CEH v8 (and forward) will have the ANSI accredited version.

Per ANSI guidelines the version has to remain. If you are a CEH v6, you are a CEH v6, not a CEH. This is how they will distinguish who passed the exam before and after the accreditation.


I can't speak to the courseware as I've never actually unwrapped my copy. Instructors are a problem for any course. Frankenstein is for instructor use only. And, personally, I never had any problems with the iLabs. I went through every lab in the manual and revised as needed or rewrote the lab if it didn't work right. What happened after that, I have no idea.

edit: I don't mean I changed the labs on-the-fly so they worked as I was studying but I was asked by EC-Council to review the iLabs manuals and make sure the labs worked.

I'm not going to defend EC-Council, that's their own job and I've already done enough of it in the past. There are plenty of unhappy people out there (in their own members portal as well). Just wanted to explain why the changes are happening.

I'm honestly not too sure.

I thought students enrolled in a CEH class would receive the iLabs-specific manuals when using iLabs in their course.

I believe EC-Council was supposed to offer iLabs access to anyone for a subscription price (which I would assume would provide you with those lab manuals) but it doesn't appear to be active...

http://www.eccouncil.org/ilabs.aspx

I would just give them a quick call at their main office and ask.

Tel: +1.505.341.3228 (US)

http://www.eccouncil.org/contact_us.aspx (bottom of the page)

The launch dates for the exam and courseware are different.

If I recall, the exam is targeted for an April launch and the courseware is not due out until roughly November.

My guess is that the courseware is going to be "cleaned up," as DragonGorge put it, but will also be aligned with the new exam (expected to be ANSI accredited soon).

A lot of effort has been put into developing this exam per ANSI standards (started back in late 2010). New objectives and task and knowledge domains have been developed by SMEs working in the field. There were a large amount of beta testers that provided feedback on each question. Multiple 'panels' were created to review all of this information and decide what to keep, change, or throw out.

In the end, I expect the exam itself will be a decent change but I don't know anything about the courseware.

Okay, that makes much more sense.

I don't know which was created first but I do know that there are specific lab guides for iLabs that are different from the lab manuals with the books.

I have a copy of the v7 courseware but it's still in it's wrapping in a box under my desk. Maybe I'll finally open it and take a look to see if I can recognize differences.

What I can tell you is that I personally reviewed, revised, and tested the iLabs manuals. I made sure that all of the problems you've referenced didn't exist. If a lab didn't work, I changed the instructions so it would. If they weren't clear, I added additional instruction.

I'm not going to make excuses for EC-Council but I'm sorry to hear of your troubles. That's the reason why I reviewed those manuals in the first place - to ensure stuff like this didn't happen.

Were you following the iLabs manuals? Or the lab guides included with the courseware? I would assume the books included with the courseware based on your description of "Bible-sized" book but just wanted to be sure.

Well, definitely congrats on passing the exam! Sorry there wasn't much feedback other than mine. Sounds like you didnt need it though. What did you end up doing as far as practice tests go? Did you end up purchasing one? If so, which? I hope you stick around the forums and continue to contribute. Again, congrats on the exam pass.