Talk:Certified information systems security professional

message: This page has been moved from CISSP.  CISSP now redirects here (Certified Information Systems Security Professional).  I cleaned up related requests in this talk page.  --J Morgan(talk) 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Moved

message: There are many people who dislike the CISSP for what they feel are legitimate reasons. I've added information about this to help balance this otherwise skewed-positive article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.238.209.10 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 August 2006  (UTC)
:Positive skew, no spin/zero spin. What-ever!. <personnal observation> Negative comments, to some people AKA criticism (criticism != critique) do not balance an article </personnal observation>. Luis F. Gonzalez 01:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  The other major Wikipedia policy is Attribution, and some of the "critcism" statements would sit better if cited from published works.  I'm pretty sure Shon Harris, among others, has made the "mile wide and an inch deep" claim, and she's certainly a reliable source.  Sounds like it's time for a trip to the library! RossPatterson 18:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I happen to have one of the Shon Harris books on my desk.  Mike Meyers' Certification Passport: CISSP.  .  Page xxi - "[The exam] is commonly referred to as a mile wide and an inch deep."  She offers no real criticism at any point in the book, though. -Jzerocsk 17:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added this (Shon Harris) book as a reference. Anyone care to offer any insight as to where references for the rest of the criticisms might come from or, better yet, what a reputable way to measure whether or not these criticisms are balanced and representative might be? njan 22:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Added

message: Can someone get more references on this since it does not appear to be an accreditation process as such. E.g. ISO gets on a plane, visits (ISC)2, performs audits and delivers a big thumbs up or down. Luis F. Gonzalez 05:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ISO 17024:2003

message: The citation currently used in the article actually infers that the CISSP is inadequate for the NSA's purposes, specifically pointing out that the (ISC)2 and NSA have partnered to create the ISSEP as an extension to the CISSP to make up for these shortcomings. The entry should either be reworded to clarify the NSA reference or have the reference updated accordingly. njan 19:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[NSA]]

message: The criticism section is totally ridiculous.  Who are the "some critics" raising those points?  Are they credible and/or experienced, or just people upset they failed the examination?  Where are the references for those critics/quotes?
You should let the article stand for what it is: a description of the CISSP certification, not a list of complaints "some critics" have about it.
Many critics are coming from academia or industry and have a vested interest in ensuring that high quality training actually certifies skills, not merely ability to pass an exam. Brennanhay (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many such critics also have a "vested interest" in devaluing any certifications or other credentials that can be acquired outside of the traditional academic system.  Even in the absence of such bias, university faculty are often ill-equipped to render opinions regarding the real-world value of any particular form of education, thus the saying "those who can do, those who can't teach." Bonehed (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

text: That's a good point and deserves to be addressed. First, the term "some critics" is considered a weasel word, i.e. wording used as a loop hole to get around the NPOV policy and to hide otherwise questionable material. Second, open discussion is a good thing and it belongs here on the talk page, where you in fact just contributed (correctly I might add!). On the other hand, if a criticism is valid and not original (there's a no original research policy on Wikipedia) it should be attributed, and I'd personally go further and say the critic should be notable enough that his or her criticism mattered. Hope this helps. Vincent 08:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with others who believe the criticism section should be removed.  The article should describe the CISSP certification from a neutral point of view, rather than taking positions for or against its value, which constitute opinion and not factual content. Bonehed (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: No information on the "(ISC)² Associate" program.  It is my understanding it is possible to become a CISSP inside this framework see https://www.isc2.org/cgi-bin/content.cgi?page=824.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "(ISC)² Associate" program? 

message: It looks like I missed the fun..a lot happening while I was gone.  I most certainly think the article is fine the way it is, without POV.  This doesn't mean it cannot be improved, however I think that it needs to be done in agreement; glad to see that has happened.
To Anon, the associate designation is not a "framework" necessarily, rather it functions as a "waiting period" for those who lack the required real-world experience in the field of information security.  It may be worth mentioning, but extensive coverage may be outside the scope of the article.
To everyone else, I forgot to add that the CBK section can be developed more, like including several sub-headers for each CBK domains so folks get a better idea of what is covered under each domain.  Rather than bickering about minor issues we should focus on improving the actual content of the article.
--Virgil Vaduva 16:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The POV tag and more 

message: I am not quite sure why there is a link to CyberEthics in the See Also section. It seems to be common that similar/competing/complementary qualifications are listed in a See Also section but I am not sure about the relevance of the CyberEthics link. Unless anyone particularly objects I intend to remove it. Wordwizz (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also section 

message: This has been discussed before, but it doesnt look like anyone has found suitable citations to back up the criticisms - it remains 'some critics say' without saying who the critics are. I will try to add some sources if I can find them, otherwise this section may need completely rewriting. Wordwizz (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have removed the 'criticism' that some say it is a mile wide and an inch deep, as I dont think the source supported this as a criticism, more as a point of view of the material which is extremely wide but doesnt necessarily expect you to be an expert - which is what the Shon Harris book states. I dont know if it is valid in this kind of article to have a specific criticism section or not, but I myself have not been able to find any published criticism beyond peoples personal experience, so I question having this section at all. Perhaps if the rest of the article is balanced enough we dont need a specific criticism section? Comments? Wordwizz (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: As a CISSP holder for almost ten years now, I completely agree that it's a mile wide and an inch deep.  I think that's an accurate criticism--that all a CISSP guarantees is a passing familiarity with ten important domains, rather than mastery of any of them.  The real question, however, is whether there is a reliable source who has so criticized (or categorized) the CISSP.  If we find one, let's include it, but I haven't personally searched for such a source. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  By way of explanation, it was not my intention to remove the criticism section as per my original comment above, but having removed the last comment, it then appeared that the rest of the article was criticism which it plainly wasnt. I certainly dont have the opinion that there shouldnt be criticism - just that it should be sourced, and I have yet found any published reliable sources that we could use. Please if anyone has links then update away! Wordwizz (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Links to my open source CISSP resources are constantly removed, I wonder WHY as they are definitively relevant.  Lately I have try to add a couple links to the CISSP post on Wikipedia.  It seems that one of the moderator has his own agenda and is constantly removing my links claiming they are not relevant.  The links are:  http://www.freepracticetests.org/quiz/quiz.php  and   http://www.cccure.org.    The first link is pointing to a free quiz engine that has over 2000 relevant questions to help people prepare for the CISSP exam.   There is a banner at the top of the page but it is a banner I am giving for free to the person who programmed the quiz engine for free.  The second link point to the first ever portal for the CISSP.   It has hundreds of study guides, links, tip, tricks, tutorials, and a lot more.    If this is what the moderator call irrelant than what is?   On the external link list there is a link to the www.cissp.com web site which is ONLY a commercial web site.  Obviously the person who is removing my links is not familiar with the CISSP exam or has his own commercial agenda.    I need help with this.   I am sure there are people who have use my site in the past and can vouch for it relevancy and it's content.  ISACA, Microsoft, Information Security Magazine, Search Security, and dozens of others are recommending my site as the primary resource for the CISSP exam.  Please help me to get my links on the page and help me to keep them there.  Thanks   Clement Dupuis Owner of the two portals above.   You can contact me directly at -REMOVED PERSONAL INFO- if you wish.  --J ClementDupuis(talk) 15:24, 24 March 2010(UTC)
:I will contact the user Sephiroth storm (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Links removed

message: This section is far too small. The only one fighting the good fight here is User:tqbf. I am not friends with him, I work in infosec, I have not failed (nor taken) the CISSP exam. I would never support such a thing. This certification is terrible for the industry, but I lack the patience to deal with CISSPs in real life, let alone fight with them on WP.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.16.97 (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: The following three articles must be merged here. Their contents are exactly same besides the title. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Certified Information Systems Security Professional. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120718143104/https://www.ansica.org/wwwversion2/outside/ALLdirectoryDetails.asp?menuID=2&prgID=201&orgID=97&status=4 to https://www.ansica.org/wwwversion2/outside/ALLdirectoryDetails.asp?menuID=2&prgID=201&orgID=97&status=4
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Certified Information Systems Security Professional. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100302041719/http://www.isc2.org/PressReleaseDetails.aspx?id=2796 to http://www.isc2.org/PressReleaseDetails.aspx?id=2796
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929122624/https://www.isc2.org/PressReleaseDetails.aspx?id=3334 to https://www.isc2.org/PressReleaseDetails.aspx?id=3334
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141211001816/https://www.isc2.org/concentrations/default.aspx to https://www.isc2.org/concentrations/default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Certified AM Directional Specialist which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 07:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress