×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Cybersecurity Industry Is Hiring, But Young People Aren't Interested

samzenpus posted about 6 months ago | from the no-thank-you dept.

Security 289

Daniel_Stuckey writes "Cybersecurity, as an industry, is booming. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, jobs as network systems and information security professionals are expected to grow by 53 percent through 2018. Yet, young people today aren't interested in getting jobs in cybersecurity. By all accounts it's a growing and potentially secure, lucrative job. But according to a new survey by the defense tech company Raytheon, only 24 percent of millennials have any interest in cybersecurity as a career."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

289 comments

hire me (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45220973)

I'm not a millennial, but I am familiar with computer system security, and while I don't have a security clearance, I do have a clean record which makes it possible to get one. Perhaps raytheon et al are simply expecting too much for too little pay. They're not going to find BS degree'd, clean cut 20 somethings with no criminal record if they insist on offering $12/hr wages. That mythical 22 year old working 22 hours a day for 22k a year doesn't exist.

The employees are out there but they cannot work for chinese slave labor wages, nor do they want that lifestyle.

Re:hire me (5, Interesting)

InfiniteLoopCounter (1355173) | about 6 months ago | (#45221079)

I have to agree. I would have worked for Raytheon if they were interested in me as I have all the required study and would work initially for cheap, but they have basically said f*** o** to me in the past with no response. How am I supposed to now be interested in working for a company that only seems to want people with existing experience as well as skills? Sounds like they want to avoid training anybody and have poor HR people, do little advertising at universities, and cry like babies when they "can't find anybody."

Re:hire me (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221285)

If they are having labor shortages they need to hire more Chinese H1Bs.

Re:hire me (5, Insightful)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about 6 months ago | (#45221721)

If the job required any sort of federal security clearance, chances are they were looking for someone who already had one. They don't want to spend the time and money on getting clearances.

Re:hire me (5, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about 6 months ago | (#45221387)

I don't know who the fuck made the conclusions but 24% is a friggin big portion.

that's like bigger than firemen, airline pilots or what have you. it's such a big pile of people that there's no frigging way for them all to have jobs in "cybersecurity".

would be rather pointless too if more than a quarter of a generation was needed for it. that would be quite telling of the fact that they wouldn't be actually doing any cybersecurity work but working as STASI.

Re:hire me (5, Insightful)

CRC'99 (96526) | about 6 months ago | (#45221725)

The employees are out there but they cannot work for chinese slave labor wages, nor do they want that lifestyle.

11 months ago I finished my Commercial Pilots License - I haven't been able to find any work at all since completing it. That was the last time I touched a plane.

The same problem exists. People are expected to splash $100k AUD on their license, then work for ~$25k a year. Not to mention get themselves to jobs on their own dime etc... I hear the same lines "There is a massive pilots shortage!!" - which is absolute bullshit. We just have to take other jobs to pay off the loans etc we took for our training.

It just about gutted my career - but this is the world we live in. Now I'm only casually employed - and making about the same amount as I would as a pilot - while working only a handful of hours.

I'm not surprised. (5, Insightful)

Xenkar (580240) | about 6 months ago | (#45220983)

I certainly wouldn't take a job that would force me to flee to another country for asylum if my conscience makes me become a whistle blower.

Re:I'm not surprised. (5, Insightful)

cardpuncher (713057) | about 6 months ago | (#45221291)

Cybersecurity doesn't necessarily mean surveillance. There's a more attractive side, too - you could spend your entire life running change control on a library of hundred-page procedure documents and reviewing firewall logs. Now, what kid could turn down *that* opportunity?

Re:I'm not surprised. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221397)

each job gets boring and frustrating after a while unless you constantly change some aspects of it. After all these years I came to believe that changing departments every few years is a must, companies every now and then too. That is vital because after a while you assume you know it all and you indeed know too many assholes in the management that you have seen started a while ago and were wondering back then wtf is this idiot looking here for. In this sense looking at firewall logs with some nicely crafted scripts is not such a bad idea unless the job does not pay for your bread and butter and later for the school of your kids and for alimony that the bitch extorted out of you etc just plain and normal things.

Re: I'm not surprised. (5, Insightful)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 6 months ago | (#45221847)

This. What the article doesn't explain is what cyber security usually entails at a defense contractor. I did that kind of work for about a year, and wanted to pull me own fingers off.

It was where they took bright engineers, gave them tedious and excruciatingly boring tasks, burned them out, and replaced them. You'd think cyber security would be somewhat cool, but in reality, it was taking several multi-thousand line spreadsheet checklists, run some scripts, and manually put passes or fails for the things the scripts didn't cover. Do that all day every day for every type of server and every project, repeatedly, till all or almost all checks were passed. And then, do documentation.

I would say that where I worked, the youngest crowd were the only suckers willing to take that work. Everyone else knew better.

Re:I'm not surprised. (1)

rvw (755107) | about 6 months ago | (#45221297)

I certainly wouldn't take a job that would force me to flee to another country for asylum if my conscience makes me become a whistle blower.

Long before that you could decide to take your chances elsewhere - same job, different employer?!

Re:I'm not surprised. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221365)

Most of us simply don't like the idea of of someone else calling the shots in our lives, dictating what direction our curiosity takes us in. We don't function like that. I've yet to have a "normal job" for more than 2-3 weeks, ever. I make an OK living, tho. Nobody besides me calls the shots in my life, and I get to break what I feel like playing with.

Re:I'm not surprised. (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 6 months ago | (#45221611)

I certainly wouldn't take a job that would force me to flee to another country for asylum if my conscience makes me become a whistle blower.

I imagine you would if it was the only way to pay for your spouses' cancer treatments.

There are a lot of jobs we're rather not take. But sometimes we're forced to chose between the lesser of two evils. Being responsible for other people can be a heavy burden.

Re:I'm not surprised. (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 6 months ago | (#45221853)

Most cybersecurity jobs are in the private sector and don't require security clearance. They're related to ensuring that commercially sensitive information stays private (employees don't wander off with copies, competitors don't hack in, and so on). A lot of it is the same sort of task as the non-cyber variant: checking that the systems you think are secure really are, investigating when they're not, designing policies to make sure that they remain so if they are.

Does everyone have to work in cybersecurity?!?! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45220985)

I would've thought 24% of young people being interested is pretty good. Especially for a niche job like this.

Re:Does everyone have to work in cybersecurity?!?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221021)

It doesn't even say that.

The survey also found less than one-quarter of young adults aged 18 to 26 believed the career is interesting at all.
[...]
The survey found many young adults raised on social networking trust technology and are not overly concerned about the threat of online identity theft or of their personal data being stolen. Seventy-five percent of survey respondents said they were confident their friends would only post information about them on the Internet that they are comfortable with and 26 percent said they had never changed their mobile banking password.

The Facebook Generation, sometimes referred to as "Generation F," includes millennials who have grown up using social networking tools such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and Pinterest. The Raytheon Millennial Cybersecurity Survey found that despite their risky online behavior, many millennials are becoming aware of Internet risks and are taking steps to protect themselves. Eighty-two percent of millennials password-protect their laptop or desktop computer, the survey found, while 61 percent password-protect their mobile phone. Thirty-seven percent of millennials said they had backed up the data on their laptop or desktop in the last month.

What garbage. Daniel_Stuckey and samzenpus are idiots.

millenials (4, Insightful)

Idimmu Xul (204345) | about 6 months ago | (#45220993)

such a retarded word

Re:millenials (4, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | about 6 months ago | (#45221375)

Referring to them as "young adults" would force people from older generations to engage with the fact that they've aged out of their role as the dominant cultural and economic force. It would tie with the enormous cottage industry in writing editorials about how my generation is going to ruin the planet, at any rate.

Re:millenials (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221427)

Shouldn't millenial imply they were born in this millenium? If so, maybe the fact they're trying to hire 13-year-olds is the issue?

Re:millenials (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about 6 months ago | (#45221833)

The term was coined for people who were going to "come of age" after 2000, so basically anyone born after the early '80s.

Re:millenials (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221439)

such a retarded word

Yes. Almost as retarded as their mentality towards security and privacy.

Perhaps "The Facebook Generation" would be more politically correct? It's certainly accurate, and speaks to the overall disinterest of this generation who likely contributes a disproportionate amount of data to NSA collection points, derived from their "meh" attitude towards privacy.

Don't worry. Millenials will be replaced with "obedient servants" soon. In the meantime, we'll settle on Sheeple.

Re:millenials (2)

darkstar949 (697933) | about 6 months ago | (#45221835)

Systems that were written largely by members of Generation X and marketed by Baby Boomers. But no, keep thinking that everything is the fault of which ever generation is the youngest.

Re:millenials (2)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 6 months ago | (#45221507)

Indeed... Maybe it's just me, but whenever I read it I first think of old people. Centennial = 100 year old person. Millenial = 1000 years old?

Bulls**t: 24% is a _lot_! (4, Insightful)

Terje Mathisen (128806) | about 6 months ago | (#45220997)

Please give me a big list of other occupations which more than 24% of a random sample of kids are interested in, then I'll allow you to claim that too few youngsters are interested in cybersecurity.

Terje

Re:Bulls**t: 24% is a _lot_! (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 6 months ago | (#45221039)

Please give me a big list of other occupations which more than 24% of a random sample of kids are interested in, then I'll allow you to claim that too few youngsters are interested in cybersecurity.

Try to get competent at it without breaking U.S. law. I believe the criminal trespass laws when into effect in 1984, and Dmitry Sklyarov was arrested under the DMCA when he went to DefCon after being granted a Visa for the purpose of attending the conference.

I'm going to guess that most of them also don't want to become good pickpockets, good safecrackers, or anything else that could land them in jail just for visiting the U.S..

Re:Bulls**t: 24% is a _lot_! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221055)

Millionaire entrepreneur, billionaire entrepreneur, rock star, teenage heartthrob, ...

But I agree 24% is awfully high for a tech job. It's because cybersecurity sounds cool to teenagers though, until they realize it's lots of work and more likely than not a life of not getting laid.

Re:Bulls**t: 24% is a _lot_! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221085)

So, 24% of kids wants to live in a (cyber)police state...

Re:Bulls**t: 24% is a _lot_! (2)

Seumas (6865) | about 6 months ago | (#45221279)

The other 76% want to be Youtube channel millionaires.

Re:Bulls**t: 24% is a _lot_! (2)

DarkOx (621550) | about 6 months ago | (#45221467)

Right I think that is sorta the problem. We have been spoon fed this idea that boomers are the most entitled generation ever and perhaps at the time they were but I think its the people that experienced childhood in the roaring 90s and their teen years in the early 2000's when it still looked like you could somehow get rich by taking a loss year over year with your online "business".

It may be that besides a few piercings and somewhat questionable taste in music, Gen X and at little past (Late 70's and very early 80's) folks are actually the most grounded in reality.

We have a whole bunch of people that grew up getting a little to much of what they wanted and being told what a special snow flake they are, while being rewarded for failure that now they don't want to work in an industry like IT Sec.

Which has its glamorous moments, actually, but most of the time is thankless drudgery, like all "work".

You should enjoy what you do but not expect to enjoy all of what you do. Its the second part that is lost on so many of these people. Its lost on them that we would not have words like "work" and "task" in our language if we liked doing everything, that has to get done.

FirSt 4ost (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221011)

dire]ct orde8s, or

Because Corps are Distusting! (2)

skaag (206358) | about 6 months ago | (#45221019)

Only large corps really spend money on security... But let's face it, why would a young and promising guy with a bright future ahead of him, work for a disgusting corporation that's full of bureaucracy, politics, and incompetent managers? What's in it for him other than the money which he can probably get elsewhere?

Small companies are not just more fun; your opinions are heard, things move much faster, there's less bureaucracy, and there's usually minimal to no politics. I would gladly shave a chunk of my salary, and work for this type of company, than waste my life in a cubicle in some corporation where I am a very small and insignificant peon.

Re:Because Corps are Distusting! (4, Insightful)

ImOuttaHere (2996813) | about 6 months ago | (#45221183)

A very surprisingly large number of corporations do NOT spend money on security.

Which is why the FBI surprised over 70 companies a couple years back when the FBI told them their systems had been hacked for the company's intellectual property. The companies in question had _no_ idea they'd been hit. Which is also why the NSA makes a point of touring US-based companies to present corporate execs (primarily in the IT end of things) un-classified reports on the latest security threats (if you don't already know, take a look at the NSA Information Assurance program). Which is why I was laid off because one such company was not going to listen to someone suggesting to them their computer security really sucked and were actually in the process of slashing intellectual property protection and computer security jobs. Again. For the eighth time in four years. So they could use the money "saved" on the salaries of people at my level who were also laid off to "buy" low level grunt "talent" in their China operations. That company's security still sux and remains far too easily hacked, and this is in a sixty year old high tech company that would've known better had they not be bought out by an aggressive "rollup" company to then be run by a bunch of greedy WallStreet-types who extract, literally, $100's of millions of dollars for themselves from the companies they've absorbed and stripped of assets.

So, no, many companies could give a rat's rear about security.

Only large corps really spend money on security...

Re:Because Corps are Distusting! (1)

skaag (206358) | about 6 months ago | (#45221213)

While that may be true, small companies and startups spend zero on security. How many startups have a CSO?

Profit vs. Cost Center (2)

zoward (188110) | about 6 months ago | (#45221453)

That's because companies view network security as a cost center, rather than a profit center, so they want to spend as little on it as possible. Being a network security specialist is a "reactionary" job - you do everything you can to make the network safe (on the usually meager budget you've given to do so), and then wait for ... something ... to happen, after which you'll be implicityly if not outright blamerd for it. You can also look forward to carrying a pager, possibly 24/7. In order to do the job well you'd probably need a skillset that intersects knowledge of IT, networking and programming. You could be a programmer, which is a profit center for software companies, which means you'd probably be treated and paid better, and not locked into IT, which is a dead end at many companies who see IT as something they begrudgingly have to pay for.

Still, network security sounds sexy, and it probably pays better than mainstream IT - I'm surprised they're having that much trouble finding people to do it.

I also can't help wondering if the world's black hats would pay better for someone with the skillset. After all, for them, network security is a profit center.

Re:Because Corps are Distusting! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221235)

Only large corps really spend money on security... But let's face it, why would a young and promising guy with a bright future ahead of him, work for a disgusting corporation...

Barf: I know we need the money, but...
Lone Starr: Listen! We're not just doing this for money!
Barf: [Barf looks at him, raises his ears]
Lone Starr: We're doing it for a SHIT LOAD of money!

Re:Because Corps are Distusting! (2)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 6 months ago | (#45221629)

I've found that having a wife and kids to support made it difficult to forgo the better-paying jobs. YMMV, obviously.

Lol, Tech. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221023)

Yeah that's what I want. A job in the tech industry, where every 10 years I'll be horribly replaced by new tech, outsourced or too old for. Then again, might I suggest the medical field, where you can get a job anywhere in the country at the drop of a hat with experience and there's a never ending Obamacare supply of jobs.

Re:Lol, Tech. (3, Informative)

Bigbutt (65939) | about 6 months ago | (#45221595)

Meh, grow up. Been doing tech work for over 40 years now. Haven't been replaced yet, but I also keep up on new tech and stay curious. If you get set in your ways and decide that your current skill set will keep you in Doritos and Mountain Dew forever, you _will_ be replaced.

And jeeze, get over the "Obamacare" rhetoric. It just makes you look like a spoiled child who's not getting their way.

[John]

OMG! Only 24%? NOOoo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221031)

We immediately need to get other 76% interested, away from those pesky unimportant jobs such as farming, logistics, film, medicine, retail, media, and million others! Then we'll finally will be able to have an AV client on each smartphone, and an AV client inside each APP in an environment with an AV client. Because from the user perspective, 80% of Cybersecurity job is to install AV in every place possible.

Soon to be obsolete (0)

ka9dgx (72702) | about 6 months ago | (#45221033)

Progress is slowly being made in the use of capability based security. This will eventually (15-20 years from now) mean that computer security will be a solved problem.

Additionally, computer security can be outsourced and managed remotely, so it is likely to be commoditized, in much the same way as IT Administration was.

Re:Soon to be obsolete (4, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | about 6 months ago | (#45221121)

Progress is slowly being made in the use of capability based security.

If you think a technology will solve all our security problems, then you don't understand what security is all about.

Securty is a process, not a technology.

Every time you think you've built something idiot-proof; nature comes right in, and delivers you a more idiotic idiot.

Until you can eliminate all humans in organizations; computer security can never be a solved problem.

Because most security problems are caused by humans, AND IT security falls within the broader umbrella of risk management.

You will never own a perfectly secure system. Not now. Not in a thousand years.

It doesn't matter what fancy new capability-based models you come up with; there will always be threats and vulnerabilities.

Re:Soon to be obsolete (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 6 months ago | (#45221645)

You will never own a perfectly secure system. Not now. Not in a thousand years.

Hey, if I own anything in a thousand years, I'm doing alright!

Re:Soon to be obsolete (1)

MtHuurne (602934) | about 6 months ago | (#45221147)

Progress is slowly being made in the use of capability based security. This will eventually (15-20 years from now) mean that computer security will be a solved problem.

Assuming capability based security will be the next big thing (I don't have enough experience to confirm or deny that), there will still be a need for people who design, write and audit programs using capability based security. So "a solved problem" would mean "the approach everyone uses" not "something that doesn't need attention".

Additionally, computer security can be outsourced and managed remotely, so it is likely to be commoditized, in much the same way as IT Administration was.

Only if you can trust a third party with your data. Also, I don't think you can fully separate computer security from information security: someone has to decide which people and automated processes get access to what data. The design of business processes and information systems (these must be in sync) in a way that minimizes security risks while still being workable is specific to a particular organization and therefore not a commodity.

Like home security (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221149)

Like home security, nobody even needs to think about it anymore. Oh wait...

Re:Soon to be obsolete (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221157)

Additionally, computer security can be outsourced and managed remotely, so it is likely to be commoditized, in much the same way as IT Administration was.

Sure that will help. I suggest we outsource computer security to the NSA. I think they have the necessary expertise in security related issues.

Re:Soon to be obsolete (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 6 months ago | (#45221541)

Given that no individual link in the security chain can be trusted (pretty much proven by the NSA), a single security method will never suffice.

Not just security (4, Interesting)

jandersen (462034) | about 6 months ago | (#45221053)

It isn't just security either; I see lots of jobs advertised at the moment here in London. It is overwhelmingly what they call "DevOps" and Java development. I have been following the market for a long while, and I can see the same roles coming up again and again, so clearly the companies are having trouble finding people.

Having worked in IT for far too many years, I know how it goes: when you hire new employees, you know they aren't going to be up to speed for at least 3 - 6 months. However, these companies are mostly new start-ups, so they think it is like hiring a contractor, and they want their new staff to be up to speed immediately. It's just not going to happen, but until they see sense and learn to plan for the long term, the situation will be that way; lots of jobs that go unfilled, and lots of well qualified people the can't find jobs. And it's not about money, really; these web companies could afford to think ahead and invest in people with good potential - and one could argue that they can't really afford NOT to do so.

On top of that, they don't actually know what they are looking for. Take this new buzzword, "DevOps"; it comes from "development" and "operations", and it means somebody who sits in the middle, between a development department and system administration; ideally this is a person who can do everything a developer does and everything a system administrator does, and such person is probably a developer who has grown into system administration. In the old mainframe days you would call them System Programmers, and they would be your most sacred asset. But what the web companies really mean when they say "DevOps" is just a low ranking build engineer, who knows how to use Puppet, Chef or Jenkins and is doing the same, repetitive task over and over, provisioning into the cloud. And they all want somebody who has "at least 5 years experience with the cloud"; has "The Cloud" even existed that long?

Re:Not just security (2)

InfiniteLoopCounter (1355173) | about 6 months ago | (#45221177)

It isn't just security either; I see lots of jobs advertised at the moment here in London. It is overwhelmingly what they call "DevOps" and Java development. I have been following the market for a long while, and I can see the same roles coming up again and again, so clearly the companies are having trouble finding people.

That doesn't mean you need to fall for these sap stories. It's the companies' own fault if they have incompetant HR or terrible business practises that force people out after short stints. In a free market if it is critical to their business and they stuff it up they should go out of business and good riddens.

On top of that, they don't actually know what they are looking for. Take this new buzzword, "DevOps"; it comes from "development" and "operations", and it means somebody who sits in the middle, between a development department and system administration; ideally this is a person who can do everything a developer does and everything a system administrator does, and such person is probably a developer who has grown into system administration.

I have done this dual job before and trust me, the HR types do not care one iota. If it saves money, great -- screw that guy some more. Who really benefits from a burnt out IT guy? The manager that can then claim that they got so much out of Joe that he had to move on to another job does. Many will unfortunately take all the credit for your hard work and you will be left stranded. Never fall for this (in case you are wondering I have not myself, but I have seen it happen).

Re:Not just security (0, Troll)

AuMatar (183847) | about 6 months ago | (#45221205)

If you're really taking 3-6 months to be useful, you're incompetent. There hasn't been a job I started in the last decade where I wasn't fixing bugs by the end of week one. (I had a joke at my last job that my first day I fixed 2 bugs with 0 lines of code- one was fixed by adding a line, one was fixed by deleting a line). Now if there's a large existing codebase it may take months to know all the ins and outs, but you should be contributing within a week.

Fresh college grads are an exception here- they need more handholding. But even with them if you give them the correct jobs you can start getting something useful out of them by the end of week 2. They'll just take longer to hit their real peak performance.

DevOps rarely means a build only guy- those are called build engineers. Generally they mean a developer with sysadmin experience (possibly a sysadmin who wants to transition) or a developer with experience dealing with configuration of servers/services- the guy who'd be configuring Apache, keeping your DB running, etc. He might be asked to set up the build system, but that wouldn't be his primary job.

Re:Not just security (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221363)

Is that what they're called! I need one of those.

Wait, from your post I'm not sure they exist? Surely some people just want to do build systems, right?

Re:Not just security (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 6 months ago | (#45221577)

It isn't just security either; I see lots of jobs advertised at the moment here in London. It is overwhelmingly what they call "DevOps" and Java development. I have been following the market for a long while, and I can see the same roles coming up again and again, so clearly the companies are having trouble finding people.

It's also possible after gaining experience and the needed clearances they discover they can make more elsewhere.

only 24 percent of millennials have any interest (4, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | about 6 months ago | (#45221073)

only 24 percent of millennials have any interest in cybersecurity as a career

That is not a lack of interest - it is an enormous interest. Think of when you were in class - if a quarter of the whole class were interested in one career. It is so high that I have difficulty believing it. If you assume that in any class you are going to have a 5% with no academic interest, maybe another 5% who truly want to pursue something non-technical, be it lawyer, politician, professional musician, sportsman, minister of religion, or artist - then I would say that it would be all the non-security related scientific, technical, and computer related industries that should be worried. If that figure were true it would mean that *most* people who are going to want a technical career would be looking at jobs in computer security.

Re:only 24 percent of millennials have any interes (5, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 6 months ago | (#45221233)

Think of when you were in class - if a quarter of the whole class were interested in one career.

Pretty even split between train drivers and astronauts.

That's the boys, obviously. I have no idea about the girls and they have cooties anyway.

Windows is not so hip any more... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221081)

Face it, the "other" operating systems have their share of vulnerabilities, but at least 80% of them are on Windows.
The young ones are getting Macs, and/or fooling around with Linux. "Cyber security" is not such an urgent item there, and when it is, it's mostly server side and requires advanced skills that not everyone is capable of, or interested in acquiring.

If you want a real security person... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221087)

... Hire a Unix sysadmin. Every other so-called "security" expert I've ever come across has been a clueless fool, he'll bent on implementing pointless dressing that just gets in the way of work, rather than actually securing systems.

Re: If you want a real security person... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221095)

Oops. "hell-bent", that should be. Fuck off, Autocorrect.

Learn from the GCHQ and NSA (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 6 months ago | (#45221089)

Offer more cash and support ongoing education, you get the best people in any generation. Start going for cheap wages, gov spying deals and contractors and it gets interesting in many ways.
Cybersecurity is sold as protecting data but could mean helping track dissidents or build deep packet inspection.
The brand is a key factor too, if you are facing more congressional hearings or whistleblowers show you hawking your domestic surveillance skills to govs. Also don't ask your staff to do mass surveillance. They know its wrong and won't be fooled by any paperwork, letters of immunity or work on a 'safe' list or 'white list' of nationals.
You also have skilled people who know what the 'brands' do internationally. The staff know their CV is going to connected to press about fines, bribes, slush funds, political intrigue, black sites and mass surveillance.
i.e. people can google the boss and brand. A new company or old, it all shows up even from the press from the 1980-90's...or later whistleblowers work.

Re:Learn from the GCHQ and NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221175)

Offer more cash and support ongoing education, you get the best people in any generation. Start going for cheap wages, gov spying deals and contractors and it gets interesting in many ways. Cybersecurity is sold as protecting data but could mean helping track dissidents or build deep packet inspection.

This.

It took the better part of a decade before the open world realized that (key length concerns notwithstanding) NSA helped secure DES against differential analysis. Around that time, a job in the IC might have been a plum job. It meant you had a chance to work with the best of the best, doing stuff that was at least a decade ahead of the open world, and you could be respected in the open world even if you couldn't talk about what you were up to.

After the revelations that NSA worked to compromise public and open standards, having experience in the IC means your CV is forever tainted, and you can never work in academia, open source, or anywhere other than the IC again. Trust is built slowly and destroyed instantly -- and it's going to take 10-20 years to overcome its present reputation.

There are no doubt some brilliant minds at NSA and GCHQ. They're getting older, and most will be retired within the next 20-40 years. Where will their replacements come from when every aspiring CS grad knows he cannot, for purely career-related reasons, accept employment there? It's secure employment, in the sense that a jail is secure. If nobody on the outside trusts you after you get out, taking a job in Fedland isn't a career, it's a life sentence.

The long-term security implications of our intelligence agencies not being able to recruit the best for the next decade is a lot more damaging to our interests than whatever silly antics the Russian/Chinese h4x0rz are going to pull.

Cyber this, Cyber that.... (3, Funny)

rts008 (812749) | about 6 months ago | (#45221091)

Or maybe, just MAYBE, they are afraid of being lumped in with the clueless bunch that are brandishing the term 'cyber' for everything, like it was some demented talisman to ward against evil net spirits.

I mean everybody knows that a 'CyberSecurity Specialist' is only a small and mostly accidental step away from a 'CyberBully', or 'CyberTerrorist', or OMG!!! Cyborg!!!

"Why yes, I'm a Terminator for the NSA, DHS, and in my spare time, the FBI and CIA! I'm a hit at all the parties!"

Re:Cyber this, Cyber that.... (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about 6 months ago | (#45221565)

Or maybe, just MAYBE, they are afraid of being lumped in with the clueless bunch that are brandishing the term 'cyber' for everything, like it was some demented talisman to ward against evil net spirits.

I mean everybody knows that a 'CyberSecurity Specialist' is only a small and mostly accidental step away from a 'CyberBully', or 'CyberTerrorist', or OMG!!! Cyborg!!!

"Why yes, I'm a Terminator for the NSA, DHS, and in my spare time, the FBI and CIA! I'm a hit at all the parties!"

Or security for that matter - i.e. security guard, mall cop...tsa, etc...

Because it doesn't involve creating anything! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221107)

The idea of working on mechanisms to stop other people from doing things seems like such a depressing job, even if the objective is to stop malicious people from doing bad things! The goal is to suppress and defeat the actions of other people who actually lead interesting lives!

Meanwhile, almost every other kind of development job involves creating something visible, something meant to be shared, something constructive, helpful, or fun!

I'm generation Y apparently so heres my experience (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221131)

Not everyone lives in some cutting edge tech hub, some countries don't even have one when it comes to security stuff. Elsewhere in the world, companies want certifications but to get certification you need documented experience with an employer... so I went and got a degree in I.T. Security then because of the aforementioned I went into mainstream I.T., then I realised there's more money to be made pretty much everywhere else but cybersecurity, and it's easier too. I love hacking all sorts of stuff, from USB MITM attacks to fuzzing to even good ol' risk assessment but I probably have more of an impact on security in general now as an IT Manager by making decent security decisions and ensuring software projects don't make stupid design choices (Eg: Let's trust all input from the client!) then I would have at as a consultant or analyst or whatever. Not only that, I get paid more and I can still do what I like in my own time without having a profit motive attached to it. I found it's easier to solve security issues when you're in the conglomerate board room and not in the company trenches, social engineering as it's best if you ask me.

Re:I'm generation Y apparently so heres my experie (1)

MobSwatter (2884921) | about 6 months ago | (#45221339)

Some of us do, I just threw up, experience or not you should run. If your okay to find nothing safe for your own mind okay, , and your good with it, then fine. this does not work for everyone.

Re:I'm generation Y apparently so heres my experie (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221379)

OP here, you're right, but my main motivation/goal was money but that's not everyone's goal though. For me, to move to such a place would require me to migrate to another country, I'm not prepared to do that. I get what you mean though, I'm essentially in the viper's den but what better place to kill some vipers? I want to solve problems and they start here, security problems included.

Supply and Demand (1)

Rande (255599) | about 6 months ago | (#45221139)

As with anything, they could try offering them more money and better conditions.
And as always, businesses would rather avoid that in favour of having others (college/govt/other countries) train them and create a surplus of people trained in the sector to depress the wages.
While it's nice when people can enjoy their work, most people work to live, not live to work. Give them training, more money and time off to enjoy it and you'll get more applicants.

How much for a lifelong paranoia treatment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221155)

Does it pay that well?

Chelsea Manning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221163)

'nuff said.

Tech Security does not favor the Junior (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221173)

Did anyone in that article actually review standard Cybersecurity job requirements? Short Version: Everybody wants super-certs, 10+ years experience and existing security clearances. Not sure about anyone else, but I've seen pretty much *jack* for anything on the many tech job boards that is Jr. or starting out Cybersecurity, and young people pretty much know that as well as anyone looking for a position. When an industry only wants super-qualified professionals, is it any wonder new people are uninterested?

Enhancing is better than restricting. (2)

hooiberg (1789158) | about 6 months ago | (#45221199)

I would prefer a job (and I have such a job at the moment) that enables users to do things, that increases their possibilities. Not one to take possibilities away, and to restrict users.

Snitches get Stitches (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221201)

Who wants to be a rat?

Give me comparative numbers (1)

giorgist (1208992) | about 6 months ago | (#45221241)

Give me comparative numbers, what is the trend ? What can I do with a "24%" which sounds like a very high number.

dafuq (3, Insightful)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about 6 months ago | (#45221249)

Am I missing something? 24% of millenials sounds like a huge number if its not just IT workers polled.

Re:dafuq (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221649)

Even weirder is that in the article they claim "Young men (35 percent) are far more interested than young women (14 percent) in a career in cybersecurity". 35%? Sounds sketchy.

because penetration testing, hackers, hacking == (1)

hairy_texas_milf (3407831) | about 6 months ago | (#45221299)

terrorism and highly illegal!! We are punishing American research for what the Chinese, Russians, North Koreans get away with for free , on a daily basis Sad sad times are here, all we can legally do now is freeze and bend over

Lies, damn lies, and statistical illiteracy (5, Informative)

taikedz (2782065) | about 6 months ago | (#45221303)

From the Raytheon article key figures: "Young men (35 percent) are far more interested than young women (14 percent) in a career in cybersecurity." If that many people are interested in cybersecurity, I'd call that "an overwhelming proportion" of persons being interested in cybersecurity. By that count, that's an enormous population of paranoid technofreaks.

"The survey also found less than one-quarter of young adults aged 18 to 26 believed the career is interesting at all." And how much of the total population gets employed in computer security AS A WHOLE? Less than 0.1% easily. How many other types of jobs, areas of interest and careers are there WITHOUT EVEN leaving the IT world?

The study page even highlights that they didn't target IT graduates. This is from a general, untargeted smattering of 1,000 members of the population. That's not even a proper sample size.

Bad journalism. Bad study report. Bad.

Learning security = jail. Punishments = Absurd! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221357)

Governments keep demonizing people interested in security and making examples out of them by putting young talented kids to jail; hence the result. Kids don't want to go to jail. They find other fun things to do.
Congratulations, job well done! Karma is a bitch...

Study Habits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221371)

If this "survey" and "key findings" are any indication of Raytheon's abilities as a cybersecurity company I don't think I'd be comfortable working for them.

Whats the fucking point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221381)

Cybersecurity really... Look it's going to be you vs. the NSA..

And they have way more money, way better people, way more people, and the law is on their side...

Everyone else is going to lose.. Why set yourself up in a purely reactive and losing position? That's a crappy job.

Outsource maybe ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221417)

How about outsourcing ? I know I know sensitive information. Seriously we only look for jobs that pay our bills. We are not stupid to sell them to some other source, As we are all aware that you can't get away from consequences. If you take into consideration of data breaches they are very minimum and often exaggerated. Your work will be safe in India.

Ex-Employer Smear campaign for 5 years now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221539)

Cybersecurity? Awesome. Ever have beyond passing interest? Never. If I do I'll be made to look like some horrible hacker and have my reputation ruined even further.

Compliant engineers who do what they're told (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221547)

By "cybersecurity" they generally mean defending retarded shit like DRM schemes and MAFIAA censorship efforts. Why the hell would I be interested? Genuinely keeping systems secure, sure, I can do that, but the establishment actively fights that, as we've seen. By "cybersecurity" the older generation generally means "ignore how digital information actually works, pretend imaginary property is real".

This article makes no sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45221691)

First, if fully 24% of all millennials surveyed expressed an interest in going into cybersecurity, that's a fucking huge number. As the article says, it's comparable to the number who are interested in law, and only a little under the figure for people who answered "yes" basically to the question "would you like to be a rich, famous movie or TV star"?

Secondly, if the sex ratio is 35% of men and 14% of women, that's *also* a much better gender-ratio (10:4) than most of the IT industry, where ratios of 10:1 or higher aren't exactly unheard-of.

Thirdly, it's silly to generalise from the highly motivated, highly technical, passionate people who are already into the hacking/security scene and identify enough with hacking culture to attend DefCon to "all young people everywhere".

Fourthly, even if a generation of kids with a strong anti-authoritarian streak (and who were shocked and appalled by various US administration's behaviour from Guantanamo Bay to Snowden while growing up) aren't interested in doing cybersecurity for the US government or bureaucratic defence contractors, that's a totally different thing to "not being interested in cybersecurity at all".

Of course they aren't interested (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about 6 months ago | (#45221701)

Why would they want to take a job working against what they consider to be a valid weapon against others, most especially corporations?

Forty percent of respondents would want to be a... (1)

nhat11 (1608159) | about 6 months ago | (#45221743)

"TV or movie entertainer," while 26 percent had interest in being a lawyer.

I personally don't know anyone that wants to be a TV or movie entertainer, are they taking this survey in Hollywood? lol

"Only 24 percent"? (1)

timothy (36799) | about 6 months ago | (#45221781)

That seems a crazily high number. Put the phrase "Only 24 percent of young people were interested in becoming ..." a lot of other jobs, and it sounds awfully strange ...

- Phlebotomist?
- Entrepreneur?
- Doctor / Nurse / Physical therapist?
- Academic?

(etc)

I'd have been far more surprised if some even higher percentage *did* express interest ...

Security is an ungrateful business (4, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 6 months ago | (#45221809)

When your job is security, the best thing that can happen is that you do an excellent job, and the end result is - nothing. That's the whole idea of it. If you do your job right, nothing happens. If you do your job badly, shit happens. Stuff gets stolen, and so on.

So will anyone congratulate you for a job well done? No, they will only see money spent on your salary with zero results. You will look as if the company could do without you. You know better, but the people who might give you a raise don't. And the people who could fire you to safe on salaries and increase profits don't.

You get much better recognition in a job that visibly produces positive results.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...