The (ISC)² Common Body of Knowledge (CBK) Survey

[wentzwu]

I received the email notification of the (ISC)² Common Body of Knowledge (CBK) Survey.

It's a nice move for ISC2 to invite feedback about the CBK from members, but I was wondering how I can get access to the "(ISC)² Common Body of Knowledge (CBK)" itself. I've bought a couple of the so-called the official guide to the CBK, say, The Official ISC2 Guide to The CISSP, ISSMP, ISSEP, ISSMP, CSSLP, CCSP CBK.

I am expecting that the ISC2 can publish the InfoSec CBK as the PMI published the PMBOK for project management.

Last but not least, I come from Taiwan, but I can't submit my survey because Taiwan is not listed in the list as the last survey question required the responder to answer.

I'd love to see Taiwan enlisted so that I can complete and submit my responses to the survey.

Thanks for your attention!

[CraginS]

---

@wentzwu wrote:

I received the email notification of the (ISC)² Common Body of Knowledge (CBK) Survey.

It's a nice move for ISC2 to invite feedback about the CBK from members, but I was wondering how I can get access to the "(ISC)² Common Body of Knowledge (CBK)" itself.

---

You cannot get access. None of us can. To the great frustration of many of us old-timers, (ISC)2 stopped publishing the CBK itself several years ago. The last copy I had was back in the 10-domain era, predating the current 8 domain construct. Grandpa Rob @rslade  had a collection of several versions over the years, but he also discovered that the actual CBK is now hidden internal document. Apparently, it is used only to license ($$$) to authors and publishers for the many books you listed. 

There have been several threads in the Community fora on this very topic, with the recalcitrant (ISC)2 staff answer being consistently to imply, without ever saying so directly, that they have no plans to return to the days of publishing the CBK for the members.

If my tone indicates frustration and  annoyance at the situation, then I have written this note as I intended.  Failure to make the CBK, which  used to be an outline of topics, not a book about them, is, in my opinion, a severe disservice to the membership.

Hey! Let's make it a push to the Board to return to the practice of releasing the CBK upon each revision! Grandpa Rob, Wim @wimremes , Diana @dcontesti , what do you think?

Craig

[Steve-Wilme]

It's a strange Common Body of Knowledge if it's not published or available to the members.  It really is security through obscurity!

I would have thought that since the CBK construct is based on work that isn't necessarily proprietary that publishing the CBKs as an outline would not cause harm to ISC2.  Not publishing them when existing members took their CISSP under a previous set of CBKs rather obviously make submitting CPEs a bit of a hit and miss affair.

[wentzwu]

Thank you very much, Dr. Shelton.

Since ISC2 is inviting feedback about the CBK, it's a good time to identify the issue of differentiating the CBK Guide from the CBK itself.

I'd love to join you to urge the Board to return to the practice of releasing the CBK upon each revision!

[emb021]

Interesting discussion.

When I did self-studying for the CISSP, I got the then CISSP CBK book to read thru.

With PMI, they have their PMBOK, which they treat as kind of the 'bible' for the PMP cert.  You pretty much study it (and other materials) to prepare.  I know I did when I was working on that cert.

Then there is my parliamentarian org (NAP).  They have certifications for parliamentarians, and when they recently decided to seek ANSI certification for their certs (not sure where they are in that process), one of the first things they did create a Body of Knowledge document which they sent printed copies to all members and still have available as a PDF on their website.

So I really don't understand why the CISSP CBK is not readily available either in some form.

[rslade]

> CraginS (Advocate II) mentioned you in a post! Join the conversation below:

> Grandpa Rob, Wim @wimremes ,
> Diana @dcontesti , what do you think?          

Oh, I'm definitely onside for giving the members access to the CBK.

And I agree that it's particularly stupid to send out a "survey" on the CBK when
nobody can read it ...

====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@computercrime.org
Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord is God in
heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other. Deut. 4:39
victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm http://twitter.com/rslade
http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/author/p1/
https://is.gd/RotlWB

[dcontesti]

---

@rslade wrote:
> CraginS (Advocate II) mentioned you in a post! Join the conversation below:

> Grandpa Rob, Wim @wimremes ,
> Diana @dcontesti , what do you think?          

Oh, I'm definitely onside for giving the members access to the CBK.

And I agree that it's particularly stupid to send out a "survey" on the CBK when
nobody can read it ...

---

So, I got the same email.....unfortunately I ignored it but I believe it was a survey to assist in a Job Task Analysis (I will go back and see if I can find it to verify or if someone can send the link).  Years ago, the survey was used to gain insight into things that may be missing from the CBK and helped the exam developers with the DCO (Domain Content Outline....which could go down to three or four levels) but as I have been excluded from test development, I may we working with old knowledge.

Typically the survey asked questions on things that you did in your day to day operations (using the CBK as an outline) and asked if there were things missing.

As to the CBK being available to the members, I see no reason why the CBK in it's original format should not be available.  The last conversation that I was involved in, around the CBK, etc. was the fact that they were going to begin to publish the domain breakdowns (that is the percentage of the test applicable to a given section).

I know that management are actively reviewing the Community and would ask that one of them ( @Kaity maybe you can pass along) to provide a much better explanation that I can on this.

So, yes I agree it should be available.

And to @wentzwu on behalf of the membership, I apologize for the fact that Taiwan was not listed on the survey, another ooooops on the part of the management team.

d

PS: sorry to have been off-line but I came back from Russia with a very nasty bug and will try to be more active .

[Kaity]

Hello @wentzwu! Taiwan has been added now – it was just an oversight, not intentional. You should be able to use the same link and re-access the survey where you left off! 

[wentzwu]

That'd be nice! I will submit my responses soon.

Thank you very much for your immediate support, @Kaity !

[wentzwu]

I am looking forward to the ISC2's return to the good practice of publishing CBK periodically as one of the member benefits.

@dcontesti , thank you very much for your attention on the technical issue adding Taiwan back. I appreciate the effective and efficient support from the ISC2 member support team.