Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: credibility (was 'more security people')
From: rhetorical question <ypwhich () io com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:13:02 -0500
Hi, <-- new member, etc.
BITD when I used to write viruses, I did it without the knowledge that there was a "community". It wasn't until Sundevil that I discovered 2600/Phrack/TAP. There was one and only one criteria for membership, and that was "clue". The community was a meritocracy, and people were accepted/rejected based on whether they were scientific/productive and whether they contributed or not. Period.
[snip] Thanks for the memories : ) Yah. Certs don't mean much unless you have the experience, understanding and passion to back them up. One time while working for Company-X... A co-worker of mine asked me to help him install Windows NT 4.0 on a workstation he was testing. He had a MCSE, and I was very confused to say the least. This CISSP stuff. I'm an Internetworking person, tried reading that "CISSP Prep" book... drier than RFC documents. Any better material on the subject, asides from hands on experience? Thanks. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- more security people =3D less security Uncle Scrotora Balzac (Feb 03)
- Re: more security people = less security Michael Graham (Feb 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: more security people =3D less security Keith Pachulski (Feb 04)
- more security people =3D less security macmanus (Feb 04)
- Re: credibility (was 'more security people') Gregory A. Gilliss (Feb 04)
- Re: credibility (was 'more security people') rhetorical question (Feb 04)
- Re: more security people =3D less securityi Keith W. McCammon (Feb 04)
- Re: more security people =3D less securityi Damian Gerow (Feb 05)
- Re: more security people =3D less securityi madsaxon (Feb 05)
- Re: credibility (was 'more security people') Gregory A. Gilliss (Feb 04)