Re: [OT] [Full-disclosure] CISSP Test

From: SecurityLSI (security_at_lan-slam.com)
Date: 03/26/05

  • Next message: Astharot: "[Full-disclosure] ZH2005-03SA -- multiple vulnerabilities in NukeBookmarks .6" 
    To: "Anders Langworthy" <hades@psilanthropy.org>, <full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:17:55 -0500

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: SecurityLSI <Security@lan-slam.com>
    To: "Anders Langworthy" <hades@psilanthropy.org>;
    <full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk>
    Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 12:16 PM
    Subject: Re: [OT] [Full-disclosure] CISSP Test

    > When it comes to InfoSec, its not hard to imagine the government
    madating
    > a form of licensing for all security professionals that deal with
    regulated
    > privacy matters (i.e. HIPPA et al). In fact, I think this would be a good
    > thing as it would inevitably be extended to other realms of IT, although
    it
    > would probably occur in an informal fashion.
    >
    > As more and more privacy regulation becomes the norm, I fully encourage
    > the government to require some form of high-level certification that must
    be
    > an across-the-board mandate (i.e. licensing). Its the only way to ensure
    > competent professionals are the ones filling security positions. That's
    not
    > to say there still won't be some duds, but at least you won't have the
    flood
    > of bootcampers, braindumps, and paper certs who are only out to make a
    fast
    > buck. After all, the security of our citizens' privacy, as well as the
    > integrity of our nation's critical infrastructures are at stake.
    >
    > --Joe
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Anders Langworthy" <hades@psilanthropy.org>
    > To: <full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk>
    > Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 1:59 AM
    > Subject: Re: [OT] [Full-disclosure] CISSP Test
    >
    >
    > > SecurityLSI wrote:
    > > > I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be an industry benchmark,
    > > > something that says you cannot operate in this field unless you have
    > passed
    > > > x. I'm thinking along the lines of something similar to the Bar exam
    > that
    > > > lawyers have to take, or perhaps a license like what doctors are
    > required to
    > > > obtain before being able to practice. I fear its going to take
    something
    > of
    > > > that level to truly separate the chaff from the wheat. Anything less
    and
    > you
    > > > only end up with braindumps and bootcampers throwing resume after
    resume
    > at
    > > > you.
    > > >
    > >
    > > There is an important distinction between something like the Bar, and
    > > medical licensure. The InfoSec equivalent of the legal Bar would be
    > > impossible to implement, because unlike a courtroom, a network is not
    > > under regulated control. If you wish to practice law, you must do it in
    > > a government-controlled courtroom*, and that government says that you
    > > must pass the Bar before doing so.
    > >
    > > My network, on the other hand--like my body--belongs to me. Nobody has
    > > the right to tell me who I can and cannot hire to work on them. In the
    > > same way, I could pay somebody off the street to perform surgery on me
    > > if I wished. I wouldn't recommend it, and they wouldn't be a licensed
    > > doctor, but nobody can stop me.
    > >
    > > So what difference does it make if we add another benchmark/"cert"? We
    > > already have plenty. Even if it were possible, would we really want to
    > > grant absolute power to something like the medical AMA?
    > >
    > > * Judge Judy doesn't count.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Anders
    > > _______________________________________________
    > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    > > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
    > > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
    >

    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
    Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

  • Next message: Astharot: "[Full-disclosure] ZH2005-03SA -- multiple vulnerabilities in NukeBookmarks .6"

    Relevant Pages

    • For Tex, (Listening & Watching)
      ... "No Place to Hide might just do for privacy protection what Rachel ... We live in an ever more convenient society. ... O'Harrow unveils a modern world riddled with seemingly innocuous private ... Department of Homeland Security aggressively sought access to these ...
      (rec.arts.poems)
    • Re: For Tex, (Listening & Watching)
      ... "No Place to Hide might just do for privacy protection what Rachel ... We live in an ever more convenient society. ... O'Harrow unveils a modern world riddled with seemingly innocuous private ... Department of Homeland Security aggressively sought access to these ...
      (rec.arts.poems)
    • Re: [Full-disclosure] psnhack - playstation network hack
      ... As security developer I am very sad if it is used for the bad purpose. ... worried for the privacy got leaked.. ... PSN too, and have some rage in my heart for the incident follow up. ...
      (Full-Disclosure)
    • Privacy, Security, Trust (PST 2011) - Call for Papers
      ... Ninth Annual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust ... Privacy Preserving / Enhancing Technologies ...
      (Bugtraq)
    • Privacy, Security, Trust (PST 2011) - 2nd Call for Papers (Deadline: March 20)
      ... Ninth Annual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust ... Andrew Vallerand, Director S&T Public Security, National Defense, Canada ...
      (SSH)