The US Army Requires CWNA & CWSP -- CWNP

veritas_libertas

That is the title on CWNP's web site. It's sorta half-truth, because in reality it says equivalent to the CWNA/CWSP.

US Army Best Practices | CWNP - Enterprise Wi-Fi Career Certifications

dynamik

I'm too lazy/busy to look into this. What do they consider to be equivalent?

veritas_libertas

dynamik wrote: »

I'm too lazy/busy to look into this. What do they consider to be equivalent?

Lazy enough to get other to do your job, eh? Guess that makes me stupid enough to do your work...

Interestingly it doesn't give an equivalent.

dynamik

Yea, I consider my laziness to be synonymous with genius. I just had to soften the way I phrased my request in order to get you to obey.

Seriously though, I'm not sure what I would consider to be equivalent. There are vendor-centric wireless certifications, but they don't really map to the CWNP certs.

SephStorm

I cant view the document, is the DoD adding those certs to 8570, or is the Army just saying "these are cool!" ?

veritas_libertas

dynamik wrote: »

Yea, I consider my laziness to be synonymous with genius. I just had to soften the way I phrased my request in order to get you to obey.

If you actually read the article (jab, jab) you would find it interesting that within the document it states:

http://www.cwnp.com/pdf/BBP_Wireless_Security_Standards_VER_3_0.pdf

JDMurray

Note the "...in addition to...":

http://www.cwnp.com/index/about/usarmy wrote:

As part of its Best Practices, the United States Army requires the CWNA and CWSP certifications in addition to the certifications required by Department of Defense Directive 8570.1.

I've already said this in several other posts, but any cert to be considered for DoD Directive 8570.01 must be certified by ISO/IEC Standard 17024:2003 first. If the CWNP's cert's don't have that ISO seal then they aren't in 8570.01.

veritas_libertas

As I understand this it means the Army is requiring standards above what the DoD is requiring. I find that very interesting.

JDMurray

Not "above," just "in addition to" as stated in the blurb.

veritas_libertas

I think the key word is, "requires."

SephStorm

Im interested in the word "equivalent".

veritas_libertas

SephStorm wrote: »

Im interested in the word "equivalent".

I am as well since I don't know of any that could be equivalent. From what I have heard Cisco's wireless certs are inferior.

dynamik

veritas_libertas wrote: »

From what I have heard Cisco's wireless certs are inferior.

I haven't taken the exam, but I went through the CCNA:W book quickly, and it seemed like good material. A lot of overlap with the CWNA, decent amount of security concepts, and a good amount of Cisco-centric material. I don't think it's a bad cert by any means (It actually seems to be the most difficult associate-level certification that they off), but I wouldn't say it's directly equivalent to any of the CWNP certifications.

JDMurray

Cisco's exams are also vendor-specific and that may be a big factor. I am not aware that the US Army is Cisco-only. I know that the US Army is not Microsoft-only.

Turgon

veritas_libertas wrote: »

That is the title on CWNP's web site. It's sorta half-truth, because in reality it says equivalent to the CWNA/CWSP.

US Army Best Practices | CWNP - Enterprise Wi-Fi Career Certifications

No insights except to say so many IT people in the US seem to be either military or by proxy working for defence in one way or another its most probably something people need to be aware of.

rage_hog

At the present time wifi devices are not permitted. So whats the point?

2E151

Everything's still pretty much up in the air. I know they still haven't told our office what everyone is required to have. One week everyone has to have Security+. Next week it's A+ & CCNA. Last time I heard it's a network cert of some kind & S+

While the directive is pretty cut and dry, the implementation by individual IAs and project managers is still being worked out.

SephStorm

go by the directive, that way you are good either way. Only problem then is getting them to pay for it.

Likely they will say Sec+ for sure, and if you are managerial level, CISSP. :{ To be sure you could go for one for each lvl, A+,Sec+, CISSP, and CEH (if youre interested in that kind of thing).

That would pretty well cover most of the current certs. The service specific stuff can wait until clear guidance is given.

BTW, CCNA is not 8570, so you can cut that out of the list. for the moment.

wastedtime

2E151 wrote: »

Everything's still pretty much up in the air. I know they still haven't told our office what everyone is required to have. One week everyone has to have Security+. Next week it's A+ & CCNA. Last time I heard it's a network cert of some kind & S+

While the directive is pretty cut and dry, the implementation by individual IAs and project managers is still being worked out.

It kind of surprises me to hear you say that it is up in the air. I will let you know that most people only need to be level 1 or level 2 certified. With most of those being IAT and 1 or 2 being IAM. A+, and Net+ would satisfy the IAT portion and Security+ would satisfy the IAM portion. The person that you would need to contact about this would be your installation's IAM. They should be able to tell you the process to receiving your rights.

As far as the CCNA being required or not via 8570. I would read C3.2.4.8.3 of DoD 8570.01-m and of course talk to your first line IAM. Depending on your job it may be required.

From the current DoD 8570.01-m.
"C3.2.4.8.3. In addition to the baseline IA certification requirement for their level, IATs with privileged access must obtain appropriate Computing Environment (CE) certifications for the operating system(s) and/or security related tools/devices they support as required by their employing organization. If supporting multiple tools and devices, an IAT should obtain CE certifications for all the tools and devices they are supporting. At a minimum the IAT should obtain a certification for the tool or device he or she spends the most time supporting. For example, if an IAT is spending most of his or her time supporting security functions on a CISCO router, the IAT should obtain a CE certification for that equipment. This requirement ensures they can effectively apply IA requirements to their hardware and software systems."

I would also like to reiterate that this is a army publication and that the DoD in general does not follow it to include the other branches of the military. Also this is a BBP (Best Business Practice) not a standard. So this may not be followed everywhere but it does fall in line with C3.2.4.8.3 of 8570.01-m.

SephStorm

I thought that was in the DoD directive? It's in JDMurray's blog.

IT Certifications and DoD Directive 8570.01-M | TechExams.net Blogs

wastedtime

SephStorm wrote: »

I thought that was in the DoD directive? It's in JDMurray's blog.

IT Certifications and DoD Directive 8570.01-M | TechExams.net Blogs

DoD 8570.01-m is actually a manual under the authority of DoD Directive 8570.1. It is pretty common to see them incorrectly written.

Some examples:
Military Certification Testing with Pearson VUE
EC-Council | DoD 8570

I am sure I have written it wrong too at some point.

Also like to add...I don't see it as to big of a deal as long as it isn't in an official document and as long as we know which one we are talking about.

GamingCrazy

veritas_libertas wrote: »

That is the title on CWNP's web site. It's sorta half-truth, because in reality it says equivalent to the CWNA/CWSP.

US Army Best Practices | CWNP - Enterprise Wi-Fi Career Certifications

What a great time to join then! I can't wait to get done with basic training (Haven't even started yet xD)

colemic

veritas_libertas wrote: »

As I understand this it means the Army is requiring standards above what the DoD is requiring. I find that very interesting.

Not to resurrect a dead thread, but I wanted to clarify - AR (Army Regulation) 25-2 mandates that Army BBP's will be followed, in addition to DoD regs... There are 18 BBPs, ranging from Wireless to Certification and Accreditation to Passwords.

Just in case you wanted to know.