FIREWALL and VPN Exam Updates

nicklauscombs

Looks like the FIREWALL (642-617) and VPN (642-647) exams are being updated from v1.0 to v2.0 soon. The last date to sit either exam is May 28th, 2012. The new exam codes are 642-618 and 642-648 respectively.

Link: http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/le3/le2/le37/le9/learning_certification_type_home.html

chrisone

WTF?! i just bought the books and they just came out 3-4 months ago! ahhhh then you wonder why people brain ****. That **** pisses me off! The last professional level cert i get from cisco. They are turning into a money cert pyramid scheme.

I am pretty sure the current books cover most if not all but it still sucks we still have to go out and get other resources for the exam.

nicklauscombs

i haven't gone over the full updates but what i glanced over appears to be exactly what was on v1.0. looks like they just wanted to be more specific in the exam blueprint.

chrisone

Honestly its not that bad, i just overreacted due to the whole "i just invested my money and time on this, and now you change things," Seems like they really wanted everyone to master the simplified NAT, and IOS ver 8.3 and 8.4 which is where the new NATing came from. For VPN looks like it the AnyConnect v3.

I have enough time to pass FIREWALL by MAY28th, I am studying for both the Secure and FIREWALL at the same time, so its not bad. I deal with FIREWALLS at work everyday and we run ver 8.3 and 8.4 on some of our firewalls so i am used to it as well. I will forgive Cisco for now and i retract my original outburst lol

But hey Cisco Press should hook us up with free updates or something.......

SteveO86

An update to CCNP: Security so soon. O well. Maybe I'll get to that this year.

nicklauscombs

also, i'm sure they are trying to line up the CCNP level exams more along with the CCIE blueprint refresh that is coming up.

instant000

nicklauscombs wrote: »

also, i'm sure they are trying to line up the CCNP level exams more along with the CCIE blueprint refresh that is coming up.

yeah, from what I can tell, the objectives are all the same, just more in line with 8.4, versus 8.2.

I actually saw the rewrite for the FIREWALL objectives, and it appeared to make a little more sense. I saw they had them online before they actually updated them "officially" maybe even a day or two before they "announced" I could see the objectives online.

Well, they also are updating CCNA:Security (long overdue .... I hope it has ASA in there now, as what's the point of being a CCNA:Security if you don't know the Cisco firewall applicance?)

oh well, questions answered:

CCNA Security and CCNP Security Certifications Include the Latest Cisco Security Products
Cisco announced today that it has updated the Cisco CCNA® Security and Cisco CCNP® Security Exams and Courses, which provide “job ready” practical skills and knowledge to address the latest advances in network security.
Staying ahead of potential security threats in the network is critical to prevent data loss and ensure IT compliance. A well-trained network security staff can lower network security implementation costs and time, both of which increase the network return on investment. Cisco Security certification programs provide training for implementing network security by using the latest Cisco security equipment and implementing the current industry-best practices.
What Is New in Security Certifications

• Updated curriculum including Cisco ASA adaptive security appliance version 8.3 and 8.4 software
• Additional focus on Cisco AnyConnect 3.0 and traditional IPsec clients
• Information on Cisco ASA adaptive security appliance 8.3+ simplified Network Address Translation (NAT)
• Enhanced data for configuring global access control lists (ACLs)
• Extended coverage for EtherChannel
• More support for bridge groups support in transparent firewall mode

source: https://learningnetwork.cisco.com/docs/DOC-13734


EDIT: They do need this coverage. I know some people who refused to migrate because they didn't understand the NAT translations (not a good idea to me, but it's really why some didn't do it.) That was the big change, code wise, that got a lot of attention, and they undoubtedly got lots of call to TAC about it