MCITP: Security would be nice

rwmidl

I was just thinking it would be nice to have the ability to get an MCITP: Security, similar to the MCSE: Security. Maybe the demand is not there for it, but it would be a nice option to have. And then icing on the cake would be for it to meet a requirement for DoD 8570!

earweed

Actually I think the demand is there but MS just hasn't gotten together any security specific track or tests yet. Security is already pretty much embedded into the normal exams and objectives.

rwmidl

I was looking at the GIAC site yesterday and saw they had a Securing Windows course (which looks pretty cool!). It would be nice if Microsoft and SANS/ISC2/CompTIA could team up and have a track where you could obtain different levels of certification, such as Desktop Support Security, Server Security, Enterprise Security.

veritas_libertas

rwmidl wrote: »

I was looking at the GIAC site yesterday and saw they had a Securing Windows course (which looks pretty cool!). It would be nice if Microsoft and SANS/ISC2/CompTIA could team up and have a track where you could obtain different levels of certification, such as Desktop Support Security, Server Security, Enterprise Security.

Yeah, I would like to do the GCWN eventually

Earweed is right, security is pretty much embedded in the current exams.

earweed

It would be nice but M$ doesn't like partnerring up with anyone as Bill Gate$ would lose some revenue.

rwmidl

veritas_libertas wrote: »

Yeah, I would like to do the GCWN eventually

Earweed is right, security is pretty much embedded in the current exams.

A guy I work with is taking the GCWN bootcamp in a few weeks. I was talking to him about it the other day, he took it a few years ago and he said it was a pretty awesome class.

Claymoore

MS is probably working on one. They have serveral exams on Forefront that will be released this fall which would give them the basis for a true security cert. See Hyper-Me's post here.

To have a proper security cert, MS would need to have the cert meet certain standards and require that the certification be renewed or expire. Earlier this year they did this with the MCSA:Security to meet ANSI and DOD standards. Looks like the ANSI standards are pretty tough so it may take them a while to get a new, renewable security cert.
MCSA Security Specialization plus recertification Earns ANSI Accreditation - Born to Learn - Born To Learn - Born to Learn

dynamik

Microsoft had previously stated that they weren't going to do an MCITP because they integrated security into the core exams. I thought their inclusion of security on those exams was really weak and was no where near what was necessary.

I think the Forefront exams should be off on their own (sure, give an MCITP for picking up the collection). I think there needs to be a security focus that focuses on the core of the operating system. There is so much you can do with NAC, PKI, and all the other new security additions since XP/2003. I don't think any of that got the attention it deserved.

powerfool

I would definitely agree that there is market for a differentiation. The MCSA: Security has been removed from the DoD 8570, btw; the reasoning is that it is a vendor-specific exam and they want the DoD 8570 certs to be vendor-neutral.

I am planning to take 70-298 tomorrow to finish my security specialization on 2003.

I think that they could offer a MCITP: Security that would have a different focus. They could have an OS Security exam that focuses on a lot of the things previously tested: PKI, NTFS perms, Security Templates, GPO, etc. Then, they could have other exams included like Forefront, and let a third-party in like suggested (and previously done) CompTIA, SANS, and/or (ISC)2.

I would love this as I am working to focus all of my certifications towards security anyhow. As soon as I complete my MCITP: EA upgrade (I have all three, 649, 647, and 680 to do), I am doing CCNA: Security, then doing CEH and will follow up with CCSP.

RobertKaucher

earweed wrote: »

It would be nice but M$ doesn't like partnerring up with anyone as Bill Gate$ would lose some revenue.

Really!?! Do you honestly believe this to be true?