Re: [PEN-TEST] Cissp

["Less, Linda" <Linda.Less () PHARMA COM>]

I would love to get a copy too! I too worked at E&Y in New York City, but
they didn't have that information when I was there. Are the copies
electronic or hard? If electronic you can just email them to me at
linda.less () pharma com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Rothke [SMTP:brothke () EBNETWORKS COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 1:38 PM
> To:   PEN-TEST () SECURITYFOCUS COM
> Subject:      Re: [PEN-TEST] Cissp
>
> Hi,
>
> When I was at Ernst & Young, we developed an internal CISSP preparation
> class.
>
> They decided not to offer the class again but I still have the tens sets
> of
> PowerPoint slides from the CBK Review.
>
> Let me know if you want a copy.
>
>
> Ben
>
>
> Ben Rothke, CISSP <brothke () ebnetworks com>
> Network Security Consultant
> eB Networks, Inc. - Leading the way to eBusiness - at NetSpeed!
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Penetration Testers [mailto:PEN-TEST () SECURITYFOCUS COM]On Behalf
> > Of Sassaman, Kim
> > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 7:20 PM
> > To: PEN-TEST () SECURITYFOCUS COM
> > Subject: [PEN-TEST] Cissp
> > Importance: High
> >
> >
> > This is off topic but what resources did you use to study for the CISSP
> > certification.  Im looking into taking the exam and was wondering if
> there
> > were some better refrences than the study guide availiable??
> >
> > Kim Sassaman
> > Charles Schwab, Inc.
> > Technology Innovation
> > Information Security Services
> > Senior Staff - Access Engineering
> > 2343 East Lincoln Drive
> > Phoenix, AZ 85016
> > Member: SIPC/New York Stock Exchange
> > [Work] 602-355-3330
> > [Mobile] 602-421-4916
> > [MobileMail] 6024214916 () mobile att net
> > <mailto:6024214916 () mobile att net>
> > [Pager] 877-568-4936
> > [PageMail] 8775684936 () skytel com <mailto:8775684936 () skytel com>
> > WARNING: All e-mail sent to or from this address will be received
> > orotherwise recorded by the Charles Schwab corporate e-mail system and
> > issubject to archival, monitoring or review by, and/or disclosure
> > to,someone other than the recipient.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Meritt, Jim [mailto:Jim.Meritt () WANG COM]
> > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 12:40 PM
> > To: PEN-TEST () SECURITYFOCUS COM
> > Subject: Re: [PEN-TEST] Testing a "rogue site"
> >
> >
> > Concur.  To have a system to secure, you need the system.
> >
> > Has anyone noticed that the original question was totally non-technical?
> >
> > There seems to be a belief that all that is involved is
> > technical.  There is
> > more to it than that.  How do you write up what you find?  How do
> > you "sell"
> > it (to management). The business aspects appear to be totally
> overlooked.
> > The "dot coms" thought that way.  Notice the business failures?
> >
> > _______________________
> > The opinions expressed above are my own.  The facts simply are
> > and belong to
> > none.
> > James W. Meritt, CISSP, CISA
> > Senior Information Systems Security and Audit Analyst,
> > Information Assurance
> > Center of Excellence
> > Wang Government Services, Inc.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Karyn Pichnarczyk [mailto:karyn () SANDSTORM NET]
> > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 12:47 PM
> > To: PEN-TEST () SECURITYFOCUS COM
> > Subject: Re: Testing a "rogue site"
> >
> >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > I totally disagree with the two rules stated above.  yes, You need your
> > company's written approval of your responsibilities.  But unless you go
> by
> > the One and Only rule, you will not last long in the security trade:
> >
> > 1. Business Must Continue.
> >
> > If this rule is not followed, then it doesn't matter how good or bad
> > the security posture is: the company just won't exist!
> >
> >
> > [snip]