Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: more security people =3D less securityi
From: Damian Gerow <damian () sentex net>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:05:24 -0500
Thus spake Keith W. McCammon (keith-list () mccammon org) [04/02/04 16:09]:
2) All the newbies could get CISSPs right now, in all likelihood. It's just a test. If you can read and remember, you're an "expert." But this doesn't mean that we're all screwed.
As a frame of reference, I was one of the Beta folk for the SSCP. It hasn't caught on nearly as much as the CISSP, but the test itself was a complete joke. We were told that it would be a challenging, hands-on, low-level knowledge, three-hour exam. I finished in twenty minutes, and passed. The last person walked out of there two hours into the exam. I signed an NDA that I don't remember the details of, so I'm loathe to disclose any specific details, but let's just say that I'd be surprised if my technophobic mother failed the exam. It's true. If you have any semblance of common sense, you can easily pass a large number of exams out there. Being able to read, and having a passable memory, just greatly increase your chances. _______________________________________________ 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)