-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 123
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Shortened Certs #135
Comments
I fully agree with this comment. CISSP has 8 domains and is very broad. |
As someone studying for the CISSP right now, this confused me a lot. The 2023 print explained it better. I think adding more explanation for GRC as a whole (the acronym is thrown haphazardly into the chart with minimal explanation) would be helpful. |
Alright, I've gotten a lot of feedback saying the new way sucks. I'll change it back, but I also need to find a different way to fit this whole monster on a 1080p screen with a few certs taken up 20+ slots. If it helps, my thought process is that I don't spread all the certifications across every domain they touch, why should those few be special? But the feedback I'm getting is that CISSP/CASP+/SEC+ ect ARE special. |
Honestly, it's easy to throw out that it sucks, but I do see why the change was done and I don't know how I would change the certifications to indicate they cover the whole set of content that they do. Maybe hover over them to see how many domains they cover, or add an asterisk? I think to a degree they are special, but at the same time, specialized certifications like the CCNA or RHCE (random examples) demonstrate better understanding of their respective domains to me because the person spent more time focusing on those areas in depth. However, I would consider a CISSP to be an expert with some understanding across multiple domains. I'm honestly not sure how to best convey that on a chart like this.
I think there's a few reasons for this. Primarily, employers treat them like they are special and the breadth they cover is LARGE. |
This is just my personal opinion, but since this roadmap was created based on the CISSP domain, it's only natural that CISSP covers a wider range of subjects. |
While there are only four domains for the CASP+, it does cover a wider breadth of content than you'd expect. While getting my CISSP, I started studying with a CASP+ book I had on hand - I'd say it covers about 75% of the content the CISSP does. That and no validation of work experience are its two biggest pitfalls, and why I don't think it will end up being worth as much as the CISSP in the industry despite trying to compete with it, but it does have a wide coverage of topics. Essentially any topic you'd expect to find on the Sec+, the CASP+ and CISSP will go into much more detail on while also having new content outright. |
Is it possible to address these two bullet points in your change notes a different way? This seems like a bad change in my opinion.
"Shortened Security+, SSCP, GSEC, Programming Languages, CASP+, CISSP, CISSP Concentrations, and GSE to cover 4 spaces in only GRC to make room for more certifications
Shortened GREM to fit with the new size of the GRC certifications"
Shortening the certs in your chart like this makes it seem like the focus of these certs is more narrow. I just had someone ask me about CISSP, so I showed him this chart as I told him about it. I told him it was a very broad certification, but the current version of your chart does not reflect this. I had to show an older version of the chart in order to explain how the cert compares to other ones.
He was trying to decide between starting studying for CISM or CISSP. The current version of the chart does a poor job of illustrating the focus of the shortened certs now. It now looks like CISM is pretty similar to CISSP in terms of the topics that are covered.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: