My work review 2013-2014

evaluaton_summaryI got my personnel review (June 1, 2013 to June 1, 2014 ) yesterday from my former department chair. The comment about teaching load and seeking funding along with mentorship really stung. I think I have done pretty good. The comment, “Encouraging them (students) to attend seminars, faculty interviews, and other scholarly events is very important.” I think this is offensive and should not be on my review where it is now assumed my pay was subject to student whims.

I make no claims at being the best academic. I know my skills are more applied than is likely good for my academic career. I really enjoy doing stuff and having fun with the different tools. I thought I had done a lot last year, but obviously my expectations were not aligned with my bosses expectations. There is no positive statement in my review, which suggests to most that I am un-promotable. An all negative review when placed in a promotion package is a pretty big nail in the coffin for ever getting promoted. In my estimation this puts promotion out at least five years.

Some things that were obviously not considered

  • I took students to ThotCon using my personal funds
  • I have provided study and educational resources to help students outside of the college using personal funds
  • I have helped with recruitment across the department even though there is not tangible benefit to me
  • I took students to DerbyCon out of my personal funds
  • I hosted an international conference at the university and over half a dozen students attended as participants and even more to simply attended as observers

Awards and Honors

  • Purdue University – Mentored graduate team that took 3rd place US teams (1st place graduate student teams internationally) in the Defense Cyber Crime Center Digital Forensic Challenge, December 2013

Conference Proceeding

  • Liles, S., Kambic, J., “Cyber Fratricide”, Fifth Annual International Conference on Cyber Conflict, Cooperative Cyber Defence, Center of Excellence, June 3 – 6, 2014, Tallinn Estonia
  • Kambic J., Liles, S.,Non-State: Cyber Power in ONG?”, International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security, Purdue University, March 24 – 25, 2014, West Lafayette, IN
  • Liles, S.J., Poremski, E., Liles, S., “Fusion of Malware and Weapons Taxonomies For Analysis”, International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security, Purdue University, March 24 – 25, 2014, West Lafayette, IN

Invited Speaker

  • Panelist – “Sharing incident data while under attack”, 15th Annual Information Security Symposium at CERIAS, March 26 – 27, 2014, West Lafayette, Indiana
  • Panelist – “The future of cyber warfare”, Alexander Hamilton Society, Duke University, October 3, 2013
  • Speaker – “Cyber security with a global perspective”, Pugwash Conference, Purdue University, April 20, 2013

Poster Presentation

  • Alaskandrani, F., Liles, S., “South Korea ICT Index Leader Cyber Assessments”, 15th Annual Information Security Symposium at CERIAS, March 26 – 27, 2014, West Lafayette, Indiana
  • Curnett, B., Liles, S., “Implementing Bayesian Statistics from an Analysis of Competing Hypothesis Framework”, 15th Annual Information Security Symposium at CERIAS, March 26 – 27, 2014, West Lafayette, Indiana
  • Curnett, B., Liles, S., “Saudi Arabian Policy on Cyber Capibilities”, 15th Annual Information Security Symposium at CERIAS, March 26 – 27, 2014, West Lafayette, Indiana
  • Sitarz, R., Liles, S., “Technological Impact of Criminal Enterprises: The impact of Cloud Computing”, 15th Annual Information Security Symposium at CERIAS, March 26 – 27, 2014, West Lafayette, Indiana

Technical Publication

  • Crimmins, D., Falk, C., Fowler, S., Gravel, C., Kouremetis, M., Poremski, E., Sitarz, R., Sturgeon, N., Zhang, Y., Liles, S., “U.S. Bank of Cyber: An analysis of Cyber Attacks on the U.S. Financial System”, May 2014, CERIAS TR 2014-3
  • Al-Askanrani, F., Amos, E., Beckman, J., Boreddy, N., Curnett, B., Martinez, C., Misata, K., Sharevski, F., Vargas, H., Liles, S., “Invisible Attacks on the maritime shipping and transportation industry”, December 2013, CERIAS TR 2013-8

Grantsmanship and funding

  • Fall 2013 BAA with Drexel, (Purdue PI, unfunded), $207,185, 33%, confidential source
  • Fall 2013 Center for Cloud Security and Forensics, (Co-Pi, unfunded), 50% $381,235, NSA and Century College
  • Summer 2013 Computer Research Alliance, (Co-PI, unfunded) 25%, $23,200,000, Army Research Laboratory

PhD Dissertation Committee

Dannie Stanley, Improved kernel security through code validation, diversification, and minimization, December 2013

MS Thesis Advisees

Marcus Thompson, An exploratory forensic acquisition and analysis of digital evidence on the Amazon Kindle, April 2014

Media Appearances

  • June 19, 2014 Diane Easterbrook “MRAPs ready to fight crime”, Al Jazeera American News, (
  • March 26, 2014 Teresa Mackin “Cyber forensics expert gives insight into plane investigation”, WISHTV8 (
  • January 31 2014 AP “Yahoo email breach what can users do?” AP Television New York <link pending>
  • January 27. 2014 Tanya Spencer “Michaels stores investigating possible data breach”, RTV6, (
  • January 5, 2014 John Hendren, “Inside the deep web” Al Jazeera America, (
  • December 6, 2013 Amanda Hamon, “Purdue team receives high honors in international digital forensics challenge”, (
  • December 2, 2013 David Delong, “Staying safe online during the holidays”, (
  • November 24, 2013 David McNally, “Comparing the technology of today to that of 50 years ago in the JFK assassination” <link pending>
  • October 8, 2013, Joshua Foust, “Ready for this? Lethal Autonomous Robot Drones”, Defense One, (
  • October 4, 2013, Tony Shan, “Alexander Hamilton Society hosts event on cyber warfare” Duke Chronicle, (
  • June 24, 2013, Sina Kashefipour, “Data, Forensics, and the Use of Cyberweapons” The Loopcast, (

Professional Activities

  • 2014 to Present American Academy of Forensic Science Digital and Multimedia Section
  • 2013 to Present Editorial Board Member, Journal of Forensic Investigation
  • 2012 to Present Reviewer for Transactions on Information Forensics & Security
  • 2008 to Present Committee Member, NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, Conference, Tallinn, Estonia
  • 2008 to Present – Committee Member, International Conference on Information Warfare and Security

Evidence of Teaching Purdue University

Core Questions     5-Strongly Agree 4-Agree 3-Undecided 2-Degree 1-Strongly Disagree

  1. The instructor is professional, organized and knows the subject well.
  2. The instructor is on time and well prepared for each class meeting.
  3. The instructor’s course materials (excluding the textbook) are helpful.
  4. The instructor employs effective teaching methods and techniques.
  5. The instructor demonstrates how to apply concepts & methodologies.
  6. The instructor presents sufficient and relevant examples.
  7. The instructor relates course material to industry.
  8. The instructor has a good working relationship with students.
  9. The instructor knows how to guide students to solve problems.
  10. The instructor provides sufficient tests or assignments.
  11. The instructor’s tests or assignments are relevant to the subject.
  12. The instructor gives valuable feedback on each student’s performance.
  13. The instructor treats students consistently
  14. The instructor provides individual assistance when asked.
  15. The instructor provides help and suggests ways for students to improve.
  16. The instructor motivates me to do my best work.
  17. The instructor explains difficult material clearly.
  18. The instructor is effective in instruction.
  19. The instructor makes the objective of each class clear to me.


Spring 2014

Course/Section #S #R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
CIT58100 CFT 8 9 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.1 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.5 3.7 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.3
CIT58100 EMF 5 8 4.6 4.2 3.4 4 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.5 4 4.4 3.6 4.6 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.2


Fall 2013

Course/Section #S #R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
CIT58100 CFT 9 9 4.1 4.1 4.3 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.6 4.0 3.8 4.3 4.6 3.3 4.6 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.4 3.8
CIT58100 CFM 7 7 4.6 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.6 4.6 4.0 3.9 4.4 4.3 3.4 4.3 4.1 4.4 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0


Why I posted this?

I think it is important for my students to understand my motivations, the incentives on my time, and what kind of standards I am expected to meet. I am tough on my students. I expect a lot of work from my students and that can wear on them. I am ok with that, but students aren’t always happy with where I am spending my time. My student’s expectations of what makes a ‘good’ professor are not necessarily what the university expectations of a good professor look like.

This review is only a paragraph long but like many messages have meta-data that other academics will look at to discern whether I am promotion worthy. There is NO comment about teaching good or bad. Funding and publication is specifically mentioned as negatives. Those are the three pillars of academia. In other words my former boss says I suck.

I am not as worried about this review as you might think from some of what might be perceived as histrionics. I promise I am not throwing a hissy fit here. I will change, I will adapt, I will do whatever it takes to be a better professor. I have a new interim department chair, which may be a good thing. Therefore, the future is brighter in my view.

Finally, the domain is a lifestyle blog. I post about motorcycles, food, information security, and much more. I have posted about the death of my son, my divorce, my marriage, and new and old jobs I have taken. I have ranted and cursed the world. I’m all out there 100 percent of the time. Being honest to society includes being honest to myself and airing the good and the bad. I do not seek pity but try and be honest.

Leave a Reply