3 ms·
This all sounds good - especially given your reputation for infosec. However, genuine question - how does the laymen (like myself) rate infosec specialists? Im
by mbesto 12y ago
This all sounds good - especially given your reputation for infosec.
However, genuine question - how does the laymen (like myself) rate infosec specialists? Imagine for a second I'm a senior exec at Target and IBN (IBM's fake arch-competitor) comes to me and says "no worries about security, we use 256-bit encryption, bank grade security, etc etc". Do I believe him?
I feel like infosec is a "I don't know what I don't know" industry and the consequences could be potentially dire.
- tptacek 12y agoIf I knew, I'd be a lot wealthier. :|
- ams6110 12y agoHow much are e.g. SANS certifications worth? I subscribe to their vulnerablity emails but they push the certification programs so hard it smells a little like University of Phoenix.
- AnthonyMouse 12y agoI can't comment on SANS in particular, but certifications in general tend to be worthless. Receiving a certification tends to be more a matter of persistence than competence. Worse, because the higher quality applicants generally recognize the futility in it, many of them don't participate, which means you can't even assume that someone without the certificate is unqualified. As far as I can tell the best information provided by a certificate is that you should avoid applicants who brag about them (and for applicants, avoid employers who list them as job qualifications).
- tptacek 12y agoI'm not a fan of any security certification.
- shawndrost 12y agoYou make hiring decisions off of a home-grown security "course", right? You've found that valuable -- would others?
- tptacek 12y agoThat's not an accurate summary of how we hire. We don't make decisions based on the crypto challenges or Microcorruption; we use them to find people to talk to. We have a whole process that actively evaluates candidates.
- f- 12y agoYou essentially can't evaluate that in isolation (looking at their past interactions with the infosec community may help). It gets better: you can't even depend on the large players generally getting it right. If a large organization makes a bad decision with their first infosec hire, it's not a self-correcting problem - the next hires will be cut from the same cloth, and unless something blows up, almost nobody will know.
- w8rbt 12y agoIn some organizations, infosec is just for show. They do it because compliance forces them to do so. In those organizations, the senior execs don't care. They only want to keep the cost down and to comply with audits. They hire managers who do that and mostly rely on legal contracts and agreements to enforce security. When they get hacked, they will pull out the report (or whatever) that states that they are XYZ compliant.
- pionar 12y agoWhile I don't doubt that infosec is just for show in some places, you can't just say that when they get hacked, they'll just say "We're XYZ compliant" and do nothing else. The whole point of those audits is to show that, while every company of any importance will eventually have some sort of breach/break-in/hack, the company takes all reasonable steps to prevent it and mitigate the possible effects of such an event. Infosec isn't a fool-proof thing. There's no way to prevent everything, and all you can do is keep on top of things and take steps to ensure you're doing everything you can to protect your systems. You WILL get hacked eventually.