Easiest Certification I Ever Got!!!
the_hutch
Banned Posts: 827
So EC-Council recently rolled out CNDA (Certified Network Defense Architect). Its the Dept of Defense version of CEH. I think mostly for political reasons, the DOD did not want to have a cert with the title "hacker" in it. It is literally the exact same thing, just a different name. And for those DOD personnel who already had CEH, they grandfather you in. I had to pay a $100 processing fee, and now I have my new title (in addition to CEH).
So my question is...if given the same opportunity, would you pay the $100 for an additional title to add to your resume? I feel like I'm just whoring myself out to the industry at this point, lol.
So my question is...if given the same opportunity, would you pay the $100 for an additional title to add to your resume? I feel like I'm just whoring myself out to the industry at this point, lol.
Comments
Oh, by the way....."I feel like I'm just whoring myself out"...Don't feel bad, it is the oldest profession, lol.
Listing a certificate I did not directly work on and pay a 100$ to have it on my resume? huge no.
I really am not sure what do you gain from it, it is an honor to list something you work really hard on, this remindes me the silly Comptia Linux+ LPIC-1 and Novell's CLA combination of certificates. you pass one and get certified in another 2.
Yes, if it benefits, why not?
Hutch,
If my boss told me I had to get this credential, I would do the same thing. I think your are correct about the CEH and the "H" word. You are merely abiding by the DoD. I think it is crazy that you have to pay a processing fee for the same certification DoD style.
If I were looking for other positions within the DoD I would add it on the resume.
Exactly! I'd also do that in a second.
The only problem with that, if someone interviewing you does not know that it's a different title for the CEH, it is a gross misrepresentation to say that passing that exam is proof that you are qualified/have the knowledge/skillset to be any kind of security/defense architect.
I am not knocking the CEH (I have it as well courtesy of WGU) but that title is wrong on every level - IF you are claiming that passing that exam makes you a network/defense architect.
I'd love to see Offensive Security take a go at an entry level certification.
However if an interviewer/company/organisation believes that you are something just because you have a certificate but no experience, then that entity hasn't done it's own job p
If the CNDA test covers 100% of the CEH and is the same exact test with a different name then yes, I would do this in a heartbeat. If the governing body says they are the same test so anyone can be grandfathered in then by all means. If it was a totally different test with different domains of knowledge and it just cost 100 dollars to get it then I would still do it but would go over the new stuff just to make sure I could defend having the letters if I was ever asked.
I am not saying the CEH doesn't have a place. But that place is not in the enterprise architect/engineer/or equivalent realm.
tbgree00 - there is no CNDA test. If you work for DoD, and pass the CEH exam, you can pay them $100 and they will give you a new certificate that says CNDA on it. Working for the DoD entitles you to be called Architect instead of Ethical Hacker.
Now that I think about it, they may have a CNDA exam but you have to show you work for DoD to qualify. But if they do I am certain is the same exam as the CEH.
Their justification (from what I have read) is that some government agencies really frown upon the 'hacker' portion of the certification name, and they created CNDA solely to sidestep that issue. But it seems to me, that if you are looking for someone who would probably be working the in the security field, you would be familiar with the CEH certification. Especially on the DoD side. So who knows...
I disagree with this statement completely. You make it sound like 'architect' is a qualitative evaluation. The title 'architect' has nothing to do with the quality of your skills. If anything, it references a particular type of skillset to include development and implementation of technology. And before anyone points it out...I will acknowledge that the CEH material has nothing to do with this particular skillset. Just arguing semantics.
I misspoke then, (mistyped rather.) I don't believe it to be qualitative at all, but I do believe that an IT architect has substantial experience/education(or a combination thereof) that allows them to solve problems and develop solutions that are above the skillset of any titled IT position. I am basing that on experience - I have known a couple of Windows/AD architects that were out-of-this-world good, and have forgotten more than I could ever hope to learn.
Like you said, it is not qualitative, but I do expect that someone in an architect role can develop and implement solutions that are beyond the reach of a specialist, sysad, engineer, etc. And like you said, I strongly feel that the CEH is far, far removed from being at that level.
Analyst -> Specialist -> Engineer -> Architect (One starts with Analyst and then become Architect)
Or maybe it's just me who considers it that way. Personally, I think one attains 'Architect' title after one knows everything (or almost everything) about the subject. But sadly, that's not true for the majority.
Maybe if they list it as CEH/CNDA, but idk. 1, the name is completely unrealistic to the skillset of the exam. 2, it is complete money whoring by EC-Council. DoD is just fine with the CEH, always has been. Notice 8570 does not list the CNDA as 8570 approved, it lists CEH. 3, CNDA was intended to be an alternative title to the CEH, not an addition, you should be either a CNDA or a CEH, not both.
As for the Architect title, I agree, its MS's fault. When we enter the IT field, the only stick we can measure someones knowledge or skillset is with certifications, its a fact, when you attend a training course, or a conference, you are going to be read a list of certs and/or degrees. Dont tell you what a person can do, but a measuring stick of what they know.
/rant
So the first big train in the IT field is MS, you hear MCSA, MCSE thrown around, usually your boss is an MCSE. So that is a reference point. Then you see on the MS matrix that there is an MCA (Architect) certification, and you've never met one, those guys must be gods. Plain and simple, Expert, Architect, Engineer, those terms have meanings beyond the vendor, and beyond even traditional definitions.
And really, this isn't the first time EC-Council has done this. LPT (Licensed Penetration Tester) is the exact same thing...just a whole lot more money. I have CEH and ECSA...so technically, I'm already qualified to be an LPT. I'm just not willing to throw $250 a year at EC-Council for the title. A single time $100 charge, however, was low enough to get me to bite.
Its ridiculous, but in the end, that's all employment is...politics and selling yourself.
CNDSP Analyst
CNDSP Infrastructure Support
CNDSP Incident Responder
CNDSP Auditor
CNDSP SP-Manager
CEH
CEH
CEH
CEH
CISSP-ISSMP
GCIA
SSCP
CISM
The CDNA "Architect" cert is just what the_hutch said: the CEH certification renamed by EC-Council for DoD personnel and approval. ECC even gets another $100 out of DoD people already CEH-certified as an application processing fee to be CNDA-certified.
I sure wish I could buy stock in ECC, because they sure seem to be good at finding money.
Forum Admin at www.techexams.net
--
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/jamesdmurray
Twitter: www.twitter.com/jdmurray
I'll have to disagree with your assessment. I think the title depends on what type of job you're performing, and is also left to the arbitrary decisions of management.
I tend to think of the titles like this: an analyst is one who goes over a data set and attempts to divine some bit of useful information from it. Example: i'm an INFOSEC Analyst, and I work on the C&A team. I perform compliance audits and vulnerability assessments.
An engineer tends to work in solutions based tasks. If I were to transfer to the operations group and do the firewall/IDS/SIEM/AV/etc monitoring, my title would switch to INFOSEC engineer because I'm performing tasks that impact the operational environment. At first blush, I would imagine you're about to dispute my claim, but for the environment I work in, the people monitoring those systems have the authority and capability to deal with the threat immediately. Infected box? Shut down their port, and notify the user that it needs to be re-imaged. Then, do a little research as to how the threat got through the defenses and make appropriate changes.
I really have no idea what a specialist is supposed to do. At one of my previous jobs, everyone that worked in my facility had the title "Telecommunications Specialist", even though we performed wildly different tasks (depending on which group we belonged to). Some people dealt with legacy telecom stuff, others dealt with radios and signal propagation, or internet (i.e. IP based) technologies, and more.
An architect is the person you call in to help design a total solution, soup to nuts.
Generally speaking, none of these titles have anything to do with seniority, but rather which role an individual seeks. Some of them are necessarily going to be a product of seniority - I wouldn't let someone fresh out of college attempt to architect a new network, or a new AD install.
While I am not disputing the facts, I still don't understand why there was a need to rename it from CEH in the first place. DoD knows what it is. Nobody gets scared off when they hear the word CEH. There has to be a driver behind that (besides the obvious money grab.)
I am glad to hear 8570 is being retooled - the best thing they could do would be to ditch the CEH altogether (although not likely). I don't think the word audit was EVER mentioned in the CEH exam (or the training materials I looked at), from experience, having the knowledge to pass the CEH makes you about as qualified to smell the number 9 (in regards to audits.)
Also - why is CISA not listed on there?
That's what I was trying to point out. Typically someone fresh out of college would start with a title that ends with analyst or specialist. Or they might have prefix of jr. They don't become architect right away (not that I know of). Architect title would be given to someone, like you mentioned, "the person you call in to help design a total solution". I was disagreeing with the CNDA title like previous members since I believe that architect title should go to the one who design total solution, not because of passing CEH.
I know what each role does whether analyst, specialist, engineer or architect. What I meant in my post was the progression of title. It that did not come across the way I meant it, I apologize.