DOCSLIB.ORG

Cybersecurity SFS Workforce Development Workshop Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cybersecurity SFS Workforce Development Workshop Report Whither SFS?: Cybersecurity SFS Workforce Development Workshop Report Lance J. Hoffman Costis Toregas July 22, 2014 Report GW-CSPRI-2014-04 Support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation's CyberCorps®: Scholarship for Service (SFS) program under Award No. 1027425. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Whither SFS?: Cybersecurity SFS Workforce Development Workshop Summary Report Lance J. Hoffman Costis Toregas Abstract This report describes a workshop that was centered on the Scholarship for Service (SFS) program and its various components and included an in-depth discussion about how to improve the program and maximize its efficiency in generating a quality cybersecurity workforce. The purpose of the workshop was to bring together program experts and/or professionals who have extensive experience with the SFS program and workforce issues. Multiple topics were discussed, including recruiting, course content, transitioning SFS students into the federal workforce, and enhancing understanding and participation in the program within 4-year institutions and community colleges. Participants examined a variety of current and foreseeable program issues and discussed program changes on which there appeared to be some level of agreement, including technical competency assessment, better coordination and resource sharing, feedback from employer agencies, non- federal government placements, community college articulation, flexibility in duration of scholarship, early clearance processing, expanded eligibility criteria, and use of a common application. Whither SFS?: Cybersecurity SFS Workforce Development Workshop Summary Report Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 Workshop Process ................................................................................................................... 1 3 Repeated Themes .................................................................................................................... 3 4 Possible Actions in Order of Priority .................................................................................... 4 4.1 Technical competency assessment ................................................................................... 5 4.2 Coordination and resource sharing ................................................................................... 5 4.3 Agency employer feedback .............................................................................................. 6 4.4 Non-federal government placements ............................................................................... 6 4.5 Community College Articulation (first year at a Community College) ........................... 7 4.6 More flexibility in duration .............................................................................................. 7 4.7 Early clearance processing ............................................................................................... 8 4.8 Expanded eligibility criteria ............................................................................................. 8 4.9 Common Application ....................................................................................................... 8 4.10 Final thoughts on possible actions ................................................................................... 9 5 Other Broad Issues ................................................................................................................. 9 5.1 Pay scale ........................................................................................................................... 9 5.2 Institutional impact of SFS ............................................................................................... 9 5.3 Scope of workforce .......................................................................................................... 9 5.4 CAE designation ............................................................................................................ 10 6 References .............................................................................................................................. 12 7 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 13 8 Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 14 8.1 Additional Issues ............................................................................................................ 14 8.2 Participant Biographical Sketches .................................................................................. 17 8.3 Working Group Composition ......................................................................................... 24 8.4 Agenda ........................................................................................................................... 25 8.5 Presentation of Valerie Barr, NSF.................................................................................. 26 1 Introduction This report is a discussion of a workshop that explored mechanisms for recruiting the best candidates for Scholarship for Service (SFS) programs, enhancing the SFS potential for articulation and content across all participating educational institutions (K-12 as well as community colleges and 4-year institutions), and linking SFS graduates and the marketplace. In short, the workshop addressed current and potential issues related to the Pipeline, the System, and Placement. This report assumes that the reader is familiar with the CyberCorps Scholarship for Service (SFS) program (NSF 2014). 2 Workshop Process The workshop took place February 5-7, 2014 in Orlando, Florida. Participants were chosen to represent a wide cross-section of informed individuals from institutions who represented various intersects on that framework template. Invited participants provided insights from two-year community colleges, four-year universities (both SFS and non-SFS), NSF program directors, the U. S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), accreditations/certification institutions, and the private sector. Links to read-ahead material were sent to participants about three weeks before the workshop so that everyone had common knowledge as a starting point. Workshop attendees were asked to think about their strongly felt beliefs, and place them as four bullet points at appropriate intersects in a framework (Figure 1) of institutions and mechanisms. Whither SFS?: Cybersecurity SFS Workforce Development Workshop Report 1 FRAMEWORK pipeline into SFS- how substance of SFS placement – how can FOR SFS do we get the best and operations- how do we we make placement of PIPELINE, brightest candidates? leverage the collective graduates of various OPERATIONS, AND wisdom? institutions fit the PLACEMENT cybersecurity jobs available and what can we do to facilitate this process? 2-year community colleges 4-year traditional undergraduate institutions Master’s degree granting programs Doctoral degree granting programs Certificate programs from traditional universities Certificate and other programs from entities not traditionally considered to be in the “education” business Figure 1. Organizational Template Sent to Participants The workshop started with plenary discussions that addressed current issues in the SFS program, drawing on existing literature and participant experience. Then the participants were broken up into three groups to focus on each of the three topics above (Pipeline, System, and Placement). After reports of initial findings and interactions and further discussions by phone with invitees who could not attend because of a major winter storm in the Eastern United States that made travel difficult during the workshop, the subgroups reconvened. They finalized their initial conclusions and developed a short list of actions, strategies and projects for the National Science Foundation to consider for immediate as well as longer term actions. On the first evening of the workshop, the principal investigators shared with the participants the preliminary results from the bullet points and other observations that were sent in prior to the Whither SFS?: Cybersecurity SFS Workforce Development Workshop Report 2 start of the workshop. The next day, Dr. Valerie Barr of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the sponsor of the workshop, gave introductory remarks (see Section 8.5 for a copy of her presentation) and each participant had the opportunity to comment on specific points they thought were important for the group to address. After a synthesis of the previously sent-in bullet points was presented, the participants split into three groups – on pipeline, system, and placement – and moved to separate rooms to develop more nuanced observations about each of these respectively. Later in the day, these working groups (see Section 8.3) presented preliminary reports and listened to feedback from the entire group of participants, and then went back to incorporate this feedback into their observations before adjourning for the day. During the evening, comments were elicited from participants who were participating remotely due to a snowstorm that prevented safe travel to the event for some invitees. Via
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting: Issues and Research Agenda
    Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting: Issues and Research Agenda March 2001 Sponsored by the National Science Foundation Conducted in cooperation with the University of Maryland and hosted by the Freedom Forum The Internet Policy Institute The Internet Policy Institute (IPI) is the nation’s first independent, nonprofit research and education- al institute created exclusively to provide objective, high-quality analysis and outreach on economic, social and policy issues affecting and affected by the global development and use of the Internet. IPI is nonpartisan and does not lobby or otherwise actively advocate or represent the interests of businesses, associations, policy makers or others. A primary role for the Institute is as a forum for independent research, discussion, debate, and consensus building. http://www.internetpolicy.org The University of Maryland, College Park The University of Maryland, College Park is a public research university, the flagship campus of the University System of Maryland, and the original 1862 land grant institution in Maryland. The University of Maryland is committed to achieving excellence as the state's primary center for research and graduate education and as the institution of choice for undergraduate students of exceptional ability. http://www.umd.edu The Freedom Forum The Freedom Forum, based in Arlington, Va., is a nonpartisan, international foundation dedicated to free press, free speech and free spirit for all people. The foundation focuses on four main priorities: the Newseum, First Amendment issues, newsroom diversity and world press freedom. http://www.freedomforum.org The National Science Foundation The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering, with an annual budget of nearly $4.5 nillion.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interview With
    An Interview with LANCE HOFFMAN OH 451 Conducted by Rebecca Slayton on 1 July 2014 George Washington University Washington, D.C. Charles Babbage Institute Center for the History of Information Technology University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Copyright, Charles Babbage Institute Lance Hoffman Interview 1 July 2014 Oral History 451 Abstract This interview with security pioneer Lance Hoffman discusses his entrance into the field of computer security and privacy—including earning a B.S. in math at the Carnegie Institute of Technology, interning at SDC, and earning a PhD at Stanford University— before turning to his research on computer security risk management at as a Professor at the University of California–Berkeley and George Washington University. He also discusses the relationship between his PhD research on access control models and the political climate of the late 1960s, and entrepreneurial activities ranging from the creation of a computerized dating service to the starting of a company based upon the development of a decision support tool, RiskCalc. Hoffman also discusses his work with the Association for Computing Machinery and IEEE Computer Society, including his role in helping to institutionalize the ACM Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy. The interview concludes with some reflections on the current state of the field of cybersecurity and the work of his graduate students. This interview is part of a project conducted by Rebecca Slayton and funded by an ACM History Committee fellowship on “Measuring Security: ACM and the History of Computer Security Metrics.” 2 Slayton: So to start, please tell us a little bit about where you were born, where you grew up.
    [Show full text]
  • A. MICHAEL FROOMKIN Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law Member, University of Miami Institute for Data Science and Computing
    A. MICHAEL FROOMKIN Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law Member, University of Miami Institute for Data Science and Computing University of Miami School of Law [email protected] P.O. Box 248087 [1] (305) 284-4285 Coral Gables, FL. 33124-8087 http://law.tm U.S.A. EDUCATION J.D., Yale Law School, 1987. Articles & Book Review Editor, Yale Law Journal, 1986 - 1987. Articles Editor, Yale Journal of International Law, 1985 - 1986. M.Phil, History, Cambridge University, England, 1984. B.A., summa cum laude, Yale College, New Haven, CT., 1982. Double major in Economics and History. HONORS Distinguished Faculty Scholar Award, University of Miami, 2020. World Technology Award for Law, 2017. Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professorship of Law, 2010-13; 2014-2017; 2017-2020 (three-year term, renewable). John Anson Kitteredge Educational Trust Grantee, 1990. Thirkill Travel Grant, Clare College, 1984. Mellon Fellowship (tuition and all expenses), 1982-84. Phi Beta Kappa, Yale College, 1982. Distinction in History, Yale College, 1982. Presidential Scholar, 1978. LEGAL EXPERIENCE Coordinator of Faculty Research, 2007- 2011. Tenure & Promotion to Professor, 1998. Associate Professor, University of Miami School of Law, 1992 - 1998. Associate, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, London office, 1989 - 1992. Admitted to the District of Columbia Bar, Nov. 13, 1989. Law Clerk, Judge Stephen F. Williams, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, 1988 - 1989. Admitted to the New York Bar, Jan. 26, 1988. Law Clerk, Chief Judge John F. Grady, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois 1987 - 1988. Summer Associate, Shea & Gardner, Washington, D.C., 1987. Summer Associate, Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel, N.Y, N.Y., 1986.
    [Show full text]
  • A. MICHAEL FROOMKIN Professor of Law
    A. MICHAEL FROOMKIN Professor of Law University of Miami School of Law [email protected] P.O. Box 248087 [1] (305) 284-4285 Coral Gables, FL. 33124-8087 fax: [1] (305) 284-6506 U.S.A. http://www.law.tm EDUCATION J.D., Yale Law School, 1987. Articles & Book Review Editor, Yale Law Journal, 1986 - 1987. Articles Editor, Yale Journal of International Law, 1985 - 1986. M.Phil, History, Cambridge University, England, 1984. B.A., summa cum laude, Yale College, New Haven, CT., 1982. Double major in Economics and History. HONORS John Anson Kitteredge Educational Trust Grantee, 1990. Thirkill Travel Grant, Clare College, 1984. Mellon Fellowship (tuition and all expenses), 1982-84. Phi Beta Kappa, Yale College, 1982. Distinction in History, Yale College, 1982. Presidential Scholar, 1978. LEGAL EXPERIENCE Tenure & Promotion to Professor, 1998. Associate Professor, University of Miami School of Law, 1992 - 1998. Associate, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, London office, 1989 - 1992. Admitted to the District of Columbia Bar, Nov. 13, 1989. Law Clerk, Judge Stephen F. Williams, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, 1988 - 1989. Admitted to the New York Bar, Jan. 26, 1988. Law Clerk, Chief Judge John F. Grady, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois 1987 - 1988. Summer Associate, Shea & Gardner, Washington, D.C., 1987. Summer Associate, Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel, N.Y, N.Y., 1986. Intern, Environmental Defense Fund, Berkeley, CA, Summer 1985. A. Michael Froomkin — PAGE 2 OFFICES AND MEMBERSHIPS Current Offices Editorial Board, I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 2004- Founding Editor, ICANNWatch.org, 1999- Non-executive director, Out2 Media Group, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Security and Privacy in Network Environments
    Information Security and Privacy in Network Environments September 1994 OTA-TCT-606 NTIS order #PB95-109203 GPO stock #052-003-01387-8 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Information Security and Privacy in Network Environments, OTA-TCT-606 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1994). For Wk by the U.S. Government Prlnflng Office Superintendent of Document\, MiIIl Stop: SSOP, Wti\hlngton, DC 204)2-932/! ISBN O- 16-04!; 188-4 Foreword nformation networks are changing the way we do business, educate our children, deliver government services, and dispense health care. Information technologies are intruding in our lives in both I positive and negative ways. On the positive side, they provide win- dows to rich information resources throughout the world. They provide instantaneous communication of information that can be shared with all who are connected to the network. As businesses and government be- come more dependent on networked computer information, the more vulnerable we are to having private and confidential information fall into the hands of the unintended or unauthorized person. Thus appropriate institutional and technological safeguards are required for a broad range of personal, copyrighted, sensitive, or proprietary information. Other- wise, concerns for the security and privacy of networked information may limit the usefulness and acceptance of the global information infra- structure. This report was prepared in response to a request by the Senate Com- mittee on Governmental Affairs and the House Subcommittee on Tele- communications and Finance. The report focuses on policy issues in three areas: 1 ) national cryptography policy, including federal informa- tion processing standards and export controls; 2) guidance on safeguard- ing unclassified information in federal agencies; and 3) legal issues and information security, including electronic commerce, privacy, and intel- lectual property.
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration in Cybersecurity: a Workshop Report
    Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration in Cybersecurity: A Workshop Report Lance J. Hoffman Laura Brandimarte Lynette Osborne Abstract This is the report of a workshop that brought together social scientists, computer scientists, and others funded under a “new collaborations” program. It summarizes issues articulated and discussed at the workshop, describes lessons learned from mixing the disciplines, and suggests future efforts to improve cross-disciplinary collaboration. May 20, 2016 Report GW-CSPRI-2016-02 Support for this research was provided through the National Science Foundation Division of Computer and Network Systems, Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace Award 1551194 Table of Contents 1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1 2 GOALS OF THE WORKSHOP ....................................................................................................... 1 3 WORKSHOP PROCESS .................................................................................................................. 1 4 OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 2 4.1 Signals of quality in interdisciplinary research ...................................................................... 2 4.2 Facilitating and incentivizing interdisciplinary interaction in cybersecurity and privacy research ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy Law Scholars Conference
    Privacy Law Scholars Conference http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/PLSC/PLSC-2009.htm OVERVIEW SPONSORS PAPERS SCHEDULE PARTICIPANTS The 2nd Annual Privacy Law Scholars Conference June 4-5, 2009 Hosted by the Berkeley Law School at the Claremont Resort & Spa Berkeley, CA Berkeley Law School and The George Washington University Law School will be holding the second annual Privacy Law Scholars Conference (PLSC) on June 4-5, 2009. The PLSC aims to assemble a wide array of privacy law scholars and practitioners from around the world to discuss current issues and foster greater connections between academia and practice. It will bring together privacy law scholars, privacy scholars from other disciplines (economics, philosophy, political science, computer science), and practitioners (industry, legal, advocacy, and government). Our goal is to enhance ties within the privacy law community and to facilitate dialogue between the different parts of that community (academy, government, industry, and public interest). The PLSC is an annual event, alternating between Berkeley and GW Law Schools. Click here for the website of the 1st Annual PLSC of 2008, held at GW Law School on June 12-13, 2008. Hosts: The Berkeley Center for Law & Technology and the GW Law School Intellectual Property Law Program 1 of 20 10/2/13 9:52 PM Privacy Law Scholars Conference http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/PLSC/PLSC-2009.htm Organizers: Daniel J. Solove and Chris Hoofnagle Co-chairs: Pamela Samuelson, Orin Kerr, Paul Schwartz, Peter Swire, and Deirdre Mulligan Participants: A list of participants will be announced soon. Location: Claremont Resort & Spa 41 Tunnel Road Berkeley, CA 94705 (510) 843-3000 SPONSORS back to top..
    [Show full text]