@wmheid wrote:I'm just thinking that it is not a bad idea to know and understand industry standard acronyms not only for the test, but for life beyond.
I think it is a good policy to have the first reference expanded (thank you, @tldutton, for explaining it). It does make me wonder about the pitfalls of adaptive testing since there are a number of homonyms (MAC, DOS, DRM, SDLC, etc.). Perhaps part of the fixation with language and acronyms comes from all the test prep entities. It is an easy way of building a question (even though it is one you might never see on an actual exam): What does DDOS stand for?
To your observation, acronyms are like programming to me. If I haven't used something in a while, I need to remember (i.e., Google) it. I think that goes for everyone whether they are willing to admit it or not. It's a good thing to have to refresh yourself because language does change and expand. At the same time, however, there are some people in the industry who can be sticklers. I've been in some awkward meetings that have devolved over securitrivia. At the same time, you have to be able to communicate plainly and directly at times. If a CEO turns to you and says "Is this a problem?" You need a 15-word answer that doesn't have an acronym (other than maybe SOL). Honestly, over the years, I've felt my primary job has been "universal translator." You have to adjust your language to the situation. I'd like to think that is what distinguishes a CISSP from some of the more narrow certs. Our role is to be able to work throughout an enterprise.
