For what it's worth, I completely agree with you, David. In fact,
coincidentally I was thinking about this the other day before having
read your message.
IMHO, LPI should stay focused on the level of protocols and de facto
standard applications, which I think it already does in general. When
focusing on security, it should zero in on some specifics of how to
secure these protocols and applications. This may involve some
non-linux-specific knowledge (ie. standard protocol knowledge), and also
some specifics around linux configuration and uses of these applications
and protocols.
That said, I do suspect that the JTA process, as pointed out by Matt,
should reasonably accomplish something of the sort. That is, if
something is too specific or not widely enough known for inclusion, the
JTA results will reflect that.
---
Dave Phillips, CEH, LPIC
David A. Bandel wrote:
Rogerio Ferreira wrote:
I am new in the group. I would like to give a suggestion for exam
303: To include one question about IPS (Intrusion Prevention System)
HLBR (Hogwash Light BR) in the exam.
Folks,
I usually just sit and lurk, but this time I will make my views known:
I support a generalized view of things like this. That is, I would
rather see a background knowledge by an admin regarding packages like
this rather than specific questions on a specific package.
I deleted the info about HLBR. I don't pass judgment on what is
good/bad/indifferent or just additional on security software. But I
don't think LPI should be used to advertise or otherwise promote any
particular software package (which inclusion of HLBR with reference to
HLBR and questions specific to it would amount to). An experienced
admin can review this package (and any others in this category) and
with an understanding of the underlying protocols and what this or any
other package presents as information, decide if this fits a bill for
them.
That said, any software like Apache that is basically a standard (I
would consider 80% market share over _all_ operating systems just
that), then reference to a specific package might be appropriate.
Again, HLBR might be great for some. But in this category, I would
only suggest reference to tcpdump as a baseline standard with the
admin showing knowledge of underlying protocols (ARP, IP, TCP/UDP,
etc.), not specific software packages.
My $0.02, and worth exactly what you paid for them.
Ciao,
David A. Bandel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
lpi-examdev mailing list
lpi-examdev@lpi.org
http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
_______________________________________________
lpi-examdev mailing list
lpi-examdev@lpi.org
http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
