IMO this misses the mark. Yes, it’s a decent attempt at simplifying cybersecurity, but if this is aimed at entry-level, non-technical people, it’s not gonna work.
One of my earliest jobs was to redesign training materials for one of the worlds largest companies. I stripped the training to its core, the true basics, and started there. The results were remarkable. I feel the urge to do the same with this document…
I'd be interested in a small sample of what you're talking about. I suspect that's a marketable product these days even if all you do is deslopify generated documentation.
I’m seconding the request. Anything specific that you (xvxvx) would explain to a layman differently? Even the briefest of examples would be a nice thought to chew on. “A should be B because C.”
I do a lot of explaining to non-techy people. My approach would be to print out the document and walk through it with them. Have the goal first be understanding of why certain things are a priority. Like it’s a baseball game: the three outfielders and three infielders are important to covering all your bases. We’re talking about this angle, in this context, and once the “why” is understood it’ll help them interpret the document correctly.
This is my first time seeing “SI” in the wild. That is such a wrong term. It’s jargon in a place where it doesn’t belong.
It’s a darn fancy algorithm and a cool tool. Putting it on a pedestal instead of grounding it to reality is not going to help anyone. My condolences to the authors.
Yeah, I dislike it too. As do most of the agencies forced to swap over to it I reckon, since "SI" is a vanity project and "AI" is what the rest of the world understands it to be.
No, no, you're missing the point! Today its only "super" intelligence, then soon enough as it improves it will go to ludicrous intelligence, at which point its intelligence will have reached plaid!
‘a lay-language resource‘.
IMO this misses the mark. Yes, it’s a decent attempt at simplifying cybersecurity, but if this is aimed at entry-level, non-technical people, it’s not gonna work.
One of my earliest jobs was to redesign training materials for one of the worlds largest companies. I stripped the training to its core, the true basics, and started there. The results were remarkable. I feel the urge to do the same with this document…
Have to agree with you. You can’t introduce concepts like phishing and MFA without actually explaining what they are.
I'd be interested in a small sample of what you're talking about. I suspect that's a marketable product these days even if all you do is deslopify generated documentation.
I’m seconding the request. Anything specific that you (xvxvx) would explain to a layman differently? Even the briefest of examples would be a nice thought to chew on. “A should be B because C.”
I do a lot of explaining to non-techy people. My approach would be to print out the document and walk through it with them. Have the goal first be understanding of why certain things are a priority. Like it’s a baseball game: the three outfielders and three infielders are important to covering all your bases. We’re talking about this angle, in this context, and once the “why” is understood it’ll help them interpret the document correctly.
This is my first time seeing “SI” in the wild. That is such a wrong term. It’s jargon in a place where it doesn’t belong.
It’s a darn fancy algorithm and a cool tool. Putting it on a pedestal instead of grounding it to reality is not going to help anyone. My condolences to the authors.
Yeah, I dislike it too. As do most of the agencies forced to swap over to it I reckon, since "SI" is a vanity project and "AI" is what the rest of the world understands it to be.
"SI" is a shibboleth. It's designed for the present government to know who's loyal to them.
Its worse than that though, as it isn't a loyalty test -- US federal executive agencies have to adopt it whether they like it or not.
I'm not a security expert.
Requests for comments from career security experts: is this any good?
I wonder how this relates to the ongoing ambiguity with CMMC 2.0 rollout.
Instead of a guide. Why not a prompt?
I didn't review it, but i for one appreciate that at least there is an attempt to help small business owners in this area.
Guide loses all credibility when it uses "Super Intelligence"
Maybe, but they would not be legally allowed to release the guide without using that term.
No, no, you're missing the point! Today its only "super" intelligence, then soon enough as it improves it will go to ludicrous intelligence, at which point its intelligence will have reached plaid!