Here is a brief list of reasons of why I think DFIRrs blog their research rather than formally publish it through a peer review process.
--Blogging is:
---faster (minutes to type up and post),
---easier (click “post”),
---written for the practitioner (“this is how you do it”),
---putting out perishable information before it spoils (“applies to the current OS today”).
--Peer review is:
---slower (months or years),
---more difficult process (lots of steps and hurdles),
---written academically (“for the love of all that is good and holy, get to the point!”),
---might be outdated by publishing date (“well, no one uses this OS anymore, but when they did…”).
Neither method results in direct a financial gain for the work done. The time spent will not equal money received, if any money received. No fame either…
I’m not going to get into the
