How I got a CISSP and ended up nominated for the Board of Directors

About two years ago I was up in Toronto having dinner with James Arlen and Dave Lewis (@myrcurial and @gattaca). Since Dave was serving on the (ISC)2 Board of Directors, and James and I were not CISSPs, the conversation inevitably landed on our feelings as to the relative value of the organization and the certifications. I have been mildly critical of the CISSP for years. Not rampant hatred, but more an opinion that the cert didn’t achieve its stated goals. It had become less an educational tool, and more something to satisfy HR departments. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with looking for certifications. As an EMT, and a former paramedic, I’ve held at least a dozen or more medical, firefighting, and rescue certifications in my career. Some of them legally required for the job. (No, I don’t think we can or should do the same for security, but that’s fodder for another day). While I hadn’t taken the CISSP test, I did once, over a decade earlier, take a week class and look at becoming certified. I was at Gartner at the time and the security team only had one CISSP. So I was familiar with the CBK, which quickly disillusioned me. It barely seemed to reflect the skills base that current, operational security professionals needed. It wasn’t all bad, it just wasn’t on target. Then I looked at the ethics requirements, which asked if you ever “associated with hackers”. Now I know they meant “criminals” but that isn’t what was on paper, and, to me, that is the kind of mistake that reflects a lack of understanding as to the power of words. Or even the meaning of the word, and from an organizations that represents the very profession most directly tied to the hacker community. Out of touch content and a poorly written code of ethics wasn’t something I felt I needed to support, and thanks to where I was in my career I didn’t need it. To be honest, James and I teamed up a bit on Dave that night. Asking him why he would devote so much time to an organization he, as a hacker, technically couldn’t even be a part of. That’s right about the time he told us to put up or shut up. You see Dave helped get the code of ethics updated and had that provision removed. And he, and other board members, had launched a major initiative to update the exam and the CBK. He challenged us to take the test, THEN tell him what we thought. (He had us issued tokens, so we didn’t pay for the exam). He saw the (ISC)2 not merely as a certification entity, but as a professional organization with a membership and position to actually advance the state of the profession, with the right leadership (and support of the members). James and I each later took the exam (nearly a year later in my case). James and I each approached the exam differently – he studied, I went in cold. Then we sent feedback on our experience to Dave to pass on to the organization. We wanted to see if the content was representative of what security pros really need to know to get their jobs done. While I can’t discuss the content, it was better than I expected, but still not where I thought it needed to be. (There was one version back from the current exam). Over that time additional friends and people I respect joined the Board, and continued to steer the (ISC)2 in interesting directions. I never planned on actually getting my CISSP. It really isn’t something I needed at this point in my career. But the (ISC)2 and the Cloud Security Alliance had recently teamed up on a new certification that was directly tied to the CCSK we (Securosis) manage for the CSA, and I was gently pressured to become more involved in the relationship and course content. Plus, my friends in the (ISC)2 made a really important, personally impactful point. As a profession we face the greatest social, political, and operational challenges since our inception. Every day we are in the headlines, called before lawmakers, and fighting bad guys and, at times, our own internal political battles. But our only representation, speaking in our name, is lone individuals and profit-oriented companies. The (ISC)2 is potentially positioned to play a very different role. It’s not for profit, run by directors chosen in open elections. The people I knew who were active in the organization saw the chance, see the chance, for it to continue to evolve into something more than a certification shop. I submitted my paperwork. Then, the same day I was issued my certification, I found out I was nominated for the Board. Sorta didn’t really expect that. Accepting wasn’t a simple decision. I already travel a lot, and had to talk it over with my wife and coworkers (both of whom advised me not to do it, due to the time commitment). But something kept nagging at me. We really do need a voice. An organization with the clout and backing to represent the profession. Now I fundamentally don’t believe any third party can ever represent all the opinions of any constituency. I sure as hell have no right to assume I speak for everyone with ‘security’ in their title, but without some mutual agreement all that will happen is those with essentially no understanding of what we do will make many of the decisions that decide our future. That’s why I’m running for the Board of the (ISC)2. Because to play that role, the organization needs to continue to change. It needs to become more inclusive, with a wider range of certification and membership options, which better reflect operational security needs. It should also reach out more to a wider range of the community, particularly researchers, offensive security professionals, and newer, less experienced security pros. It needs to actually offer them something; something more than a piece of paper that will help their resume

Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.