Meh.
It's a list of corporate execs, academics, and celebrities. It's not a list of front-line techies.
It's not a list of techies who write the reports, but managers 5 layers above them who take credit for the reports.
It's a list of corporate execs, academics, and celebrities. It's not a list of front-line techies.
It's not a list of techies who write the reports, but managers 5 layers above them who take credit for the reports.
https://twitter.com/CISAJen/status/1466082346164178950
Except for maybe a couple of examples, you don't want these people on an advisory committee. Instead, you want a committee of techies nominated by these people, vouching for deep technical knowledge and current first-hand, front-line experience.
CEOs and corporate officers are the worst. Their job is to promote the interests of their companies. They rightly see their position on such a board as yet another way to promote their corporate interests. This isn't evil, it's just that it's their sole job.
Outsiders see infosec as a technical field. Inside, the opposite is true. It's weird how we devalue technical expertise, knowledge, and experience.
At conferences, I often talk to front-line techies, those neck deep in the s**t. They sometimes lack a high-level perspective, but they are by far the most interesting people in infosec. The nerdier the better.
So it's a nice celebrity advisory committee. My question for @CISAJen is if they are going to create a technical advisory committee.
FYI: I'd nominate @Dave_Maynor and @SwiftOnSecurity for a techy advisory committee. Actually, I'd vouch for a lot more people, those are just two I've recently seen tweets from, so are at the top of my head, to give as examples.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
