So #infosec #jobs thread.
In the last 12 months, I've been involved with 60+ interviews for various SOC, IR etc roles. This has come from about 120+ CV/Resume submissions.
To start, a caveat though - this is all IMHO. Hiring is an amazingly individual event.

First CV length. The common wisdom is that it has to be under 2 pages and very tailored to the role. I disagree. A CV should be concise but it also needs to provide enough information to make the hiring manager want to speak to you. If there is an HR screen, it needs to contain
a tonne of possibly random keywords. If a job advert asks for 10 different skills, and you can fit this in to 1-2 pages, chances are the person reading it will find it missing detail and think it is unconvincing. If it's your first job a 1 page CV is ok but the more you've done
the longer your CV gets. I don't have a perfect answer but I'd say don't fret about it. A large part of the hiring process is automated and even the people who read it will read it online scrolling through to get to the bits they are interested in. Long CVs rarely put people off.
Sidenote: if they do, they are likely to be difficult to work with so you might be OK with them rejecting you after all.
Next point - and it is sad this needs to be said, but DO NOT LIE. I get that we've been told for decades to "puff" out our abilities and "fake it until you make it" but nothing kills your hiring progress faster than being caught in a lie.
Sadly about 20% of the interviews I've been part of have ended with a candidate being caught in an awkward lie, almost always un-necessary ones as well. All it does is waste everyone's time.
Common examples are claims to have certifications which they dont (if nothing else it shows ignorance about what certs can be looked up...) and claims to have skills which they dont. I've sat in interviews with people who sent CVs saying "extensive experience in disk forensics"
Then, when asked, cant say what they do or what tools they use.

With this, I dont mean asshole questions like "tell me every forensic suite" or weird ones like "whats the difference between dd and dcfldd" I mean "tell me how you would do X" type questions.
If you say "I have 5 years experience in reverse engineering malware" but can't talk to someone about what your general approach is, it creates the strong impression you have exaggerated your background.
That's enough on the candidates. They have a hard enough job as it is so it's impressive that there are very few consistent problems. However, the companies doing the hiring are often nightmares.
It seems normal for medium-large orgs to have HR and a recruitment agency involved in the hiring process. This causes all kinds of problems, but lots of hiring managers who *do the job* make life harder as well.
The biggest issue is making sure the job description is valid and useful. I've seen countless JDs which bear no relation to what the hiring manager really wants, so every candidate gets rejected. If you want someone who knows EnCase say so. If you don't, DON'T ASK FOR ENCASE.
I know that sounds simple, but it's amazing how often organisations get this wrong. I've seen one place which was a full FTK shop use a job advert which never once mentions FTK, but asks for EnCase experience. Then they complained that almost no candidates had FTK experience...
Be realistic. If you want someone with X, you need to pay for it. If you want a junior then don't expect them to know everything. If you want someone who knows packets in-depth, can script, analyse disks, carve memory etc., you are asking for someone who is VERY expensive.
The WORST mistake I see hiring managers make is to demand the people they hire know as much as they do. There is an exception but generally, this is really flawed. If they know as much or more, why would they work for you on less?
The exception is hiring a specialist. You may need someone who is a ninja in (say) Malware analysis and I wouldn't expect the manager to know more about it. However, don't expect the Malware person to talk to you about weird DNS exfil techniques. (I've actually seen that).
The last point is that interviews shouldn't be adversarial and really shouldn't turn into a certification exam. You are trying to understand what the candidate knows and if they will fit into your organisation. You should be trying to get them to explain how their experience
solves problems in your org. Sadly about 75% of interviews I've seen have had at least one interviewer basically showing off their own knowledge to the candidate. This makes no sense and often leaves the candidate feeling they are inadequate. This is not your goal.
Tl;dr

Hirers: Make your job descriptions more accurate and honest. Interview people fairly. Have realistic expectations based on what you will pay.

Candidates: Never lie. Never lie. Never lie. Stop lying.

More from For later read

Humans inherently like the act of solidarity. We are social beings. We like to huddle up and be together.
They used this against us.
They convinced us that it was an act of solidarity to flatten the curve, to wear a mask for others, to take the vaccines for others,


and to reach #covidzero for others. They convinced us that this was for the greater good of society.
In reality, this couldn't be further away from the truth. They have divided us and broken the core structure of our society. They have dehumanized us with their masks.

They set us against each other into clans on opposite sides of a spectrum. They have turned us into aggressive beings fighting for our survival. Some of us fear harm from the virus, others fear harm from the vaccine, and yet others fear harm from the attack on our civilization.

We are all on a flight or fight mode. We are all operating under the influence of fear. We must collect ourselves and reflect on what has happened over the last year.
How is this for the greater good of society?

They used a tactical warfare strategy against us.
'Divide and conquer'.
We fell for it.
Now we must become aware of it and fight back.
We must reunite. We must find true solidarity to save our world. To free ourselves. To regain our autonomy.
Today's Twitter threads (a Twitter thread).

Inside: Planet Money on HP's myriad ripoffs; Strength in numbers; and more!

Archived at: https://t.co/esjoT3u5Gr

#Pluralistic

1/


On Feb 22, I'm delivering a keynote address for the NISO Plus conference, "The day of the comet: what trustbusting means for digital manipulation."

https://t.co/Z84xicXhGg

2/


Planet Money on HP's myriad ripoffs: Ink-stained wretches of the world, unite!

https://t.co/k5ASdVUrC2

3/


Strength in numbers: The crisis in accounting.

https://t.co/DjfAfHWpNN

4/


#15yrsago Bad Samaritan family won’t return found expensive camera https://t.co/Rn9E5R1gtV

#10yrsago What does Libyan revolution mean for https://t.co/Jz28qHVhrV? https://t.co/dN1e4MxU4r

5/
This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.

@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.

Some counterpoints 👇


1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.

This does not seem self-evident to me


Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇

If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted

2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.

But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.

Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.

3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:

"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."

To

"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."

IMO the latter statement is incorrect.
Excited we finally have a draft of this paper, which attempts to provide a 'unifying theory' of the long economic divergence between the Middle East & Western Europe

As we see it, there are 3 recent theories that hit on important aspects of the divergence...

1/


One set of theories focus on the legitimating power of Islam (Rubin, @prof_ahmetkuru, Platteau). This gave religious clerics greater power, which pulled political resources away form those encouraging economic development

But these theories leave some questions unanswered...
2/

Religious legitimacy is only effective if people
care what religious authorities dictate. Given the economic consequences, why do people remain religious, and thereby render religious legitimacy effective? Is religiosity a cause or a consequence of institutional arrangements?

3/

Another set of theories focus on the religious proscriptions of Islam, particular those associated with Islamic law (@timurkuran). These laws were appropriate for the setting they formed but had unforeseeable consequences and failed to change as economic circumstances changed

4/

There are unaddressed questions here, too

Muslim rulers must have understood that Islamic law carried proscriptions that hampered economic development. Why, then, did they continue to use Islamic institutions (like courts) that promoted inefficiencies?

5/

You May Also Like