‘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…

▲

mcmcmc 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Have to agree with you. You can’t introduce concepts like phishing and MFA without actually explaining what they are.

▲

Sn0wCoder 2 hours ago | parent [-]

To be fair the linked paper links to both MFA and Phishing along with links to almost every topic it touches.

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/CSWP/NIST.CSWP.50.pdf

https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/fact-s...

https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/MFA-Fa...

▲

mcmcmc an hour ago | parent [-]

Kind proves the point it’s not written for the layperson no?

	▲	rramadass 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Read the document; it does explain phishing/etc. for a layperson in simple terms in the document itself. The gp just pointed to more resources for further study mentioned in the document.

▲

jaggederest 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

	▲	philosopherNoob 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

zoeysmithe 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Have you read CSWP50? Its not exactly written on the 3rd grade level. I think its a pretty good compromise between something only your IT department can understand and what a small employer needs to know. If anything, it leans too technical and verbose.

Not only are there links to go deeper into each subject matter but also a part telling the employer how to hire help if they need cybersecurity help and with a link to the "Small Business Cybersecurity Support Programs Finder" directory. Ideally they should be asking around in the small business community for a local vendor, but this document does a lot of things right.

I think this is an excellent document for small business and doesn't really talk down to them.

	▲	rramadass 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> I think this is an excellent document for small business and doesn't really talk down to them. Right, the gp has not read it or are intentionally trying to spread FUD. This is a good document as is generally the case for all NIST documents. It is even more relevant for the "general public" since every home has similar problems as far as cybersecurity is concerned. Cybersecurity knowledge is vital for everyone nowadays. Hence I highly encourage people to read this and other documents linked to. NIST is one of the few orgs who still do a pretty good job and hence should always be taken seriously. Based on their recommendations create your own checklist/workflow and have everybody at your org/home follow it.