Infosec Institute has faced public plagiarism accusations twice. In 2011 it settled a copyright dispute with the exploit research group Corelan. In 2017 a forensic analyst said an Infosec article copied their blog post, and Infosec took it down. A 2013 forum post also warned students about an online course that delivered far less video than advertised.
These stories are older than my own boot camp. They also happened years before Cengage bought Infosec in 2022. I’m including them because they come up when people search for Infosec Institute complaints. They also fit a pattern I recognize. The material wasn’t what was promised, and the company went quiet when someone complained. Every claim below links to its source.
What was the Corelan plagiarism case?
Corelan is a group known for free exploit development tutorials. According to a write-up published on Attrition.org, the story starts in September 2010. A member of the Corelan crew got a copy of the lab book for Infosec Institute’s “Expert Penetration Tester” course.
The write-up says: “Within minutes it is clear that the document is an almost verbatim copy of the Corelan tutorials.” It adds that the tutorials “took close to 24 months to develop.”
Corelan’s lawyers sent letters to Infosec Institute on December 17, 2010 and March 29, 2011. Attrition.org posted copies of both letters, the copyright registration, and a scan of the lab manual. It also notes that Lab #8 in that manual came from a published book by another author.
How did the Corelan dispute end?
Attrition.org published its write-up on October 29, 2011. It reports that Infosec Institute published an apology two days later. On November 17, 2011, Corelan and Infosec Institute announced a settlement.
The apology didn’t stay up. Attrition.org says it was updated twice and then “removed completely when the ‘resources’ site was taken offline due to further plagiarism concerns.”
Was Corelan the only plagiarism claim?
No. Attrition.org keeps a separate page on Infosec Institute that lists more examples from November 2011. They include course material, conference presentations and articles by instructors. Its conclusion: “It became clear that the Corelan incident was not a one-off, and likely not the work of a rogue contractor as ISI claimed.”
The same page says Attrition.org helped Infosec revise its content review policy. Infosec then published a statement about new content creation policies. Attrition.org notes that statement was also later removed.
What happened in 2017?
In 2017 a forensic analyst named Gabriele Zambelli wrote a blog post titled “Caught red-handed: if plagiarism is bad, denying it is worse.” Zambelli had published research on Windows Phone 7.8 forensics in September 2015. On July 29, 2017, Zambelli found an article on Infosec’s resources site. The blog post calls it “an unauthorized reproduction of my article.”
Zambelli says a comment left on the article was never approved, and that Infosec didn’t answer a tweet about it. The post includes side-by-side screenshots of the two articles.
Then the story spread on Twitter and LinkedIn. In an update dated August 9, 2017, Zambelli wrote: “InfoSec Institute took down my work from their website!”
What did the 2013 Forensic Focus complaint say?
In April 2013, a student posted a warning on the Forensic Focus forum about Infosec’s online Computer Forensics course. The student bought it in October 2012.
The student says the website promised “35+ hours of live recorded streaming video.” What they got, in their words, was “roughly 10 hours” of video. They also described “numerous technical errors in the content” and a lab manual that referenced labs from older versions of the course.
When they asked for a refund, they say Infosec was “exceedingly unresponsive.” They filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. They say the BBB “were of little help once Infosec Institute offered credit towards another course.” Their advice: “Save yourself $2,000 and just buy the $20 book.”
To be fair, not every reply agreed. One forum member asked how much research the student had done before buying. Another wrote: “you are not the first and you will probably not be the last.”
The student also filed on Ripoff Report. I cover another Ripoff Report complaint in my post on Infosec Institute and Intense School.
Why do these old stories still matter?
They are more than ten years old, and the company has changed owners since. I won’t pretend they prove what Infosec is like today. But they show the same things I and others keep describing. The material didn’t match what was sold. Complaints were met with silence until they went public. And statements were quietly taken down later.
If you’re deciding where to train, check the provider yourself. My guide to verifying a training company’s claims shows how, and my list of Infosec Institute alternatives covers where I’d go instead.
Frequently asked questions
Did Infosec Institute plagiarize Corelan?
Yes, according to Attrition.org. In 2011 it published evidence that an Infosec Institute lab book was “an almost verbatim copy of the Corelan tutorials.” Infosec published an apology, and the two sides announced a settlement on November 17, 2011.
Has Infosec Institute been accused of plagiarism more than once?
Yes. Attrition.org listed several more examples in 2011. In 2017 a forensic analyst said an Infosec article copied their research, and Infosec removed it on or before August 9, 2017.
Are these complaints about Infosec Institute recent?
No. They date from 2011 to 2017, before Cengage bought Infosec in 2022. For recent complaints, see my Infosec Institute review roundup.
Sources
- Attrition.org, InfoSec Institute plagiarized course material from Corelan.be, October 29, 2011: attrition.org
- Attrition.org, Charlatan: InfoSec Institute (ISI): attrition.org
- Gabriele Zambelli, Caught red-handed: if plagiarism is bad, denying it is worse, August 2017: forensenellanebbia.blogspot.com
- Forensic Focus forum, Caution: Infosec Institute Online Computer Forensics Course, April 15, 2013: forensicfocus.com
Part of my full Infosec Institute review roundup: every complaint, the pass-rate claims, and better ways to prepare for the CISSP, all in one place.
