Cisco job UK
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by slim on December 6, 2005, 7:50 pm
Please log in for more thread options >>The CISSP? That cert's a joke! I knew a guy who had no real security
>>experience, studied a book for three months or so, and passed. That >>cert's little more than paper cert. >
> > That a lot of companies care about these days. Joke or not, it it > helps one get a job, I say "why not?" > Don't you think that is a *very* dangerous approach, especially when it comes to issues of infosec? It would seem that having a sense of "uneasiness" or comprehending a lack of knowledge is much better than being lulled into a false sense of security proficiency. I'd think those who believe they are knowledgeable when in fact they're potentially incompetent are the ones that will take a company down or cause it to make the headlines! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by yamahasw40 on December 7, 2005, 9:13 pm
Please log in for more thread options but if there are two people with equal experience, the paper cert could break the deadlock. The exact same argument can be levelled against CCNA, CCNP or any other Cisco cert, with the exception of the CCIE (and none of this "CCIE Written" bullshit). If you are rub At least your mate studied the books for three months. He could have spent three nights cramming the TestKing answers and got the paper cert that way. But that's not the point. The point is that Security is the current Y2K, and for every job requiring intimate knowledge of BGP 4+. there are a hundred requiring security, and the ratio of practitioners is a lot less. COOs, CEOs and quite a few CIOs don't know the difference between CISSP and CCIE (Security), but do know that they have to employ somebody to secure their network before the nasty hackers sell their confidential business IP to their rivals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by slim on December 7, 2005, 9:27 pm
Please log in for more thread options yamahasw40 wrote:
> Its like a drivers license. You need one. It doesn't make you a master,
You're missing my point, I think...
> but if there are two people with equal experience, the paper cert could > break the deadlock. > > The exact same argument can be levelled against CCNA, CCNP or any other > Cisco cert, with the exception of the CCIE (and none of this "CCIE > Written" bullshit). If you are rub > > At least your mate studied the books for three months. He could have > spent three nights cramming the TestKing answers and got the paper cert > that way. > > But that's not the point. > > The point is that Security is the current Y2K, and for every job > requiring intimate knowledge of BGP 4+. there are a hundred requiring > security, and the ratio of practitioners is a lot less. COOs, CEOs and > quite a few CIOs don't know the difference between CISSP and CCIE > (Security), but do know that they have to employ somebody to secure > their network before the nasty hackers sell their confidential business > IP to their rivals. > Just because I pass a cert exam doesn't mean I'm qualified. This individual is being tasked with security direction for a company that houses people's financial records. Would you want someone unqualified with final authority in matters pertaining to the safety of your financial info? I think Cisco certs are a bit different. You have to demonstrate, tangibly, your mastery of the material. I had more respect for the CISSP than I do now, simply because you couldn't pull that stuff in a Cisco cert context (study for a couple of months with little to no previous experience), especially at the CCIE level. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Hansang Bae on December 7, 2005, 10:41 pm
Please log in for more thread options slim wrote:
> You're missing my point, I think...
And you're missing mine. > Just because I pass a cert exam doesn't mean I'm qualified.
Conversely, just because you have a cert, does not mean you are *not* qualified. Double negative for emphasis! > This
> individual is being tasked with security direction for a company that > houses people's financial records. Would you want someone unqualified > with final authority in matters pertaining to the safety of your > financial info? Of course not. But again, you're assuming the person with a cert is incompetent and I'm saying that may not be the case. We are actually on the same sheet of music. >
> I think Cisco certs are a bit different. They are not. > You have to demonstrate,
> tangibly, your mastery of the material. No, not really. > I had more respect for the
> CISSP than I do now, simply because you couldn't pull that stuff in a > Cisco cert context (study for a couple of months with little to no > previous experience), especially at the CCIE level. Sure you can. With the explosion of CCIE training tailored to help you pass the exams, this is no longer the case. It hasn't been for quite some time. And before someone butts in with the usual non sequitur, I hold just about every IT cert there is so I know of what I speak. Not because I needed them or even wanted them, but because it benefited my employers. You see, one of the *real* reasons for cert is so that the company can say "we have 110,000 CERTIFIED people to help you." This makes buyers feel warm and fuzzy about support. Of course it doesn't follow what certified == experienced, but companies didn't care. Very few people know this, but Novell used to make people come to Provo to take hands on tests. This was late 80's as I recall. Then the market exploded, Paper CNE became a house hold name in the TI industry, and MS followed suit. I'll credit Cisco for trying to keep a check on it by mandating the hands on tests. But it too has been watered down. -- hsb "Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin **************************ROT13 MY ADDRESS************************* Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not be able to reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead. ******************************************************************** | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by slim on December 8, 2005, 7:09 pm
Please log in for more thread options Hansang Bae wrote:
> I'll credit Cisco for trying to keep a check on it by mandating the
> hands on tests. But it too has been watered down. > > OK...I'll bite! :-) I'd really like to hear some more of your thoughts on your last statement. Not that I've drank too much of the Cisco Kool-Aid, but having invested a fair amount of my own money and time into Cisco certs and being at a small crossroads in my networking career, I'd like to know your observations on a couple of things: First - your thoughts on the key ingredients to the successful future of a network engineer (not a guy bucking for management, but someone who loves and has passion for network tech as a whole), and... Second - the importance of certifications relating to the above. We have all heard ad-nausium the arguments, pro and con, for certs. However, your charge that Cisco is becoming watered down is pretty bold, considering the lengths their willing to go to in order to preserve the marketability of the test. I understand the concept of certification marketing, however, there's got to be more value than simply giving a customer warm-fuzzies. I guess that if that's what it takes to make a buck, then most business types would say the means justify the ends. I, however, don't wish to spend limited time and funds on something that has a historical context of failure. Other's claim education (more degrees) are the key. Some claim all of the above. Some claim that a network engineer should consider themselves a relic, go get an MBA, and stop leaching off of society. Make sense? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>