The MCSA certification requires three core exams and one elective. The certification is actually very well designed, and should serve as a useful guide for employers.

Why change? Well, I think there are a number of reasons. The biggest reason? The terrorist attack and it's effect on economy. My peers and I have seen, in just a month, our budgets disappear, especially for things like upgrades and certifications. My boss put it very well to me last week, "if you have choice between upgrading and laying people off, what are you going to do?" The answer is obvious. At my company, we have postponed upgrading until next year at least, which means we do not need to get certified.

Another big reason is that MCSE's have jobs, and I don't know about you, but I have trouble finding time to take classes and tests to continue certification. It's hard enough just to keep wife happy, write some articles, and maintain job. So certification, testing and learning will wait.

On top of that, Microsoft has been very unsuccessful in trying to force computer industry to upgrade to Windows 2000 and beyond. Yes, my company did install Windows 2000 on all of our laptops, but we've found Windows NT 4.0 works very well on our other servers and workstations. We have no intention or need to upgrade our hundreds of systems for next several years, unless their is a valid business reason.

Even more importantly, even though we may upgrade our systems to Windows 2000, we have no intention of installing Active Directory anytime soon. Why not? This is a huge change and we simply don't want to support it at this time.

Finally, industry backlash on Microsoft has been huge, and power of 400,000+ MCSE's and their supervisors should not be underestimated.

Personally, I am happy that Microsoft has made this change. Now I can concentrate on important issues like polishing our disaster site, upgrading our security measures, ensuring our backups work properly and making our systems work better for our users.

What's wrong with this picture? Conceptually, it is actually a good idea. Passports have capability to enforce a security standard across entire internet, and Microsoft has muscle and staying power to make it work. Lord knows it will be convenient to be able to log into hundreds of different sites using same username and password. This sure will make life easier for a lot of people.

On other hand, as demonstrated by more than 45 security alerts released by Microsoft in first two-thirds of 2001, this company is not well known for it's attention to security. In fact, Microsoft is directly responsible for two of worst security issues on internet today: Code Red and it's variants, and email worms such as Melissa and SirCam.

Steve Gibson, author of fabulous website Grc.com, makes following comment:

"With a bit of horror, I learned that Microsoft's developers have no understanding of security."

If that doesn't send a shiver down your spine, I don't know what will. Now, do you really want these people to be in charge of security of your bank account, medical records and dozens or even hundreds of other records?

So what should you do? Personally, I am concerned about Microsoft's obvious lack of security knowledge, and I do not want to trust them with my personal data. Thus, I will not be using anything "protected" by passport, unless it is absolutely necessary. I just have too many questions and concerns not only about privacy, but about safety of my personal information from criminals, terrorists and other evil-doers.

To see a list of article available for reprint, you can send an email to: mailto:article-list@internet-tips.net?subject=send_article_list or visit http://internet-tips.net/requestarticles.htm