To the author:
I normally don't post in meta-discussions regarding an article, but I can't leave this one unanswered. A few points:
1) I was from the school of thought that having a broad array of knowledge is a good thing - not a bad thing. The CISSP exam again is comprehensive from an INFOSEC perspective. Trading depth for breadth? Maybe, but not when you consider the depth of detail required to pass.
2) The passing score is 70% (That's 140 out of 200 correct, if you need me to break it down for ya). Again, that's one of many inaccuracies I found in this article. ISC(2) doesn't hide this information anywhere.
3) Keeping the questions-and-answers secret for a certification exam is hardly a novel concept, or is anal. It's vital for maintaining the integrity of the exam.
4) Yes, it's widely known that the CISSP exam is more targeted towards management - that's why it's arguably more challenging. Indeed, it's been written in many well-respected computer magazines and websites that the CISSP exam is the "cream of the crop" in terms of security exam difficulty. Certcities.com among others have repeatedly stated this.
5) The whole point of the CISSP is that it's -NOT- tied down to any one specific area of strength or weakness. You need to be consistently strong in all 10 areas to have a fighting chance at passing. ISC(2) makes an alternative exam called the SCSP that's targeted more at administrative personnel.
6) I found the article bordering on bashing a cert. And a cert with the weight and respect of CISSP shouldn't be bashed. I don't care what cert it is (MCSE, Novell, Cisco, etc). People pour their efforts, money, and risk their professional credentials on these exams. (Imagine what happens when all your co-workers know you're shooting for a specific cert. Don't tell me there isn't pressure to pass.)
7) To say that you're 17 again when taking it... It doesn't dignify a response.
8) I keenly look forward to your prompt posting of your exam results. Sure, we won't know your score if you passed, but I'm wagering -THAT- little unknown tidbit won't apply, in your case.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/67/11048#11048