Certified: The GIAC GSLC Audio Course

In this episode, we focus on networking literacy as a leadership skill, because leaders who understand the basics can ask better questions, spot weak explanations, and make faster decisions during outages and incidents. You do not need to be the person configuring routers or writing firewall policies, but you do need to understand what the network is doing when people describe a problem in fragments. Networking concepts show up in nearly every security decision, from segmentation choices to incident triage to vendor conversations about monitoring coverage. When leaders lack basic networking language, they are forced to manage by proxy, trusting whatever explanation they hear first, even if it is incomplete or biased. When leaders have a clear mental model, they can challenge assumptions, request the right evidence, and coordinate teams without turning every discussion into a translation exercise. The aim here is practical confidence, not textbook depth. We will cover the small set of concepts that explain most of what happens on networks and most of how attackers move through them.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

Internet Protocol (I P) addressing and routing are easiest to understand when you treat them as two parts of the same story. An I P address is an identifier that lets systems know where to send data, similar to how a mailing address tells a delivery service where a package should go. Routing is the process of choosing the path that data takes across networks to reach that address, which is like deciding which roads and highways a delivery truck uses. In most organizations, devices have addresses that are meaningful within a network segment, and routers connect those segments so traffic can move where it is allowed. Routing decisions follow rules, and those rules determine what can reach what, which is why routing is a security concern as much as an availability concern. When routing is correct, traffic reaches the right destination through intended paths. When routing is wrong, traffic is blocked, misdirected, or exposed to places it should not be, and that can look like outage, compromise, or both. Understanding this lets managers ask focused questions like which segment is affected and whether the route exists and is permitted.

It also helps to distinguish between the idea of an address and the idea of a name, because this is where many troubleshooting conversations get stuck. Addresses are numeric and used by devices to move packets, while names are human-friendly labels that help people refer to services and systems. Most of the time, users interact with names rather than addresses, because names are easier to remember and allow services to move without changing how people reach them. That separation is useful, but it introduces dependencies, because the name must resolve to the correct address at the right time. When leaders understand this separation, they can separate a connectivity problem from a naming problem, which shortens triage dramatically. For example, users might say the website is down, but the site could be reachable by address while the name resolution is failing. That distinction changes which team is accountable and what evidence matters. Networking literacy is often about making those distinctions quickly and calmly.

Domain Name System (D N S) is the mechanism that translates names into addresses, and it is one of the most important services in any environment because so much depends on it. When someone types a service name, the system asks D N S for the address, then uses that address to connect. D N S also supports service discovery, email routing, and many internal dependencies that are invisible until they break. Because D N S sits at the intersection of user intent and network reality, it becomes an attack surface. Attackers use D N S for phishing, for redirecting users to malicious destinations, and for command and control where compromised systems look up names that point to attacker infrastructure. Attackers can also attempt to manipulate D N S records, poison caches, or exploit weak controls around who can create and change records. Even without those advanced manipulations, monitoring D N S queries can reveal suspicious patterns, such as rare domains, newly registered domains, or unusual query volumes from a single host. When leaders understand D N S, they can treat it as both a reliability dependency and a security sensor.

Transport protocols are the next core concept, and the differences between Transmission Control Protocol (T C P) and User Datagram Protocol (U D P) are best explained through simple behavior. T C P is connection-oriented, meaning it establishes a session and ensures reliable delivery, ordering, and retransmission when packets are lost. This makes it well suited for applications where correctness matters, such as web sessions, file transfers, and remote administration. U D P is connectionless, meaning it sends packets without establishing a reliable session, which reduces overhead and can improve speed for time-sensitive use cases. U D P is common in streaming, voice, gaming, and certain infrastructure protocols where occasional loss is acceptable or where the application handles reliability in its own way. The key managerial insight is that T C P tends to behave predictably in terms of sessions and acknowledgments, while U D P can look like bursts of traffic without an obvious handshake. That affects how you interpret monitoring and how you troubleshoot performance. It also affects security controls, because inspection and stateful filtering behave differently depending on whether traffic is stateful like T C P or stateless like U D P.

Ports and services sit on top of these transport protocols, and misunderstanding them leads to bad decisions because ports are how networks map traffic to applications. A port is a logical endpoint on a device, and it helps the device know which service should receive the incoming traffic. Services listen on specific ports, and clients connect to those ports to request a service, which is why security policies often specify which ports are allowed between zones. The common pitfall is treating ports as if they are security by themselves, when in reality they are just labels for services. Allowing a port through a firewall is equivalent to allowing access to whatever service is listening there, which may change over time if systems are misconfigured or compromised. Another pitfall is assuming that blocking a port stops a capability, when some protocols can tunnel over allowed ports or when applications can shift ports. Leaders should think of ports as part of an access decision, not as a complete security strategy. When you understand ports correctly, you ask better questions about why a flow is needed and what service is actually behind it.

A quick win for managers is learning common service ports and why they matter, not to memorize trivia but to interpret conversations and risk quickly. Knowing that web traffic commonly uses ports associated with Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (H T T P S) and that remote administration often uses distinct ports helps leaders understand what a requested firewall change implies. Knowing that name resolution services rely on specific ports helps leaders recognize why D N S issues can look like widespread outages. Knowing that email, directory services, and remote access often have predictable port patterns helps leaders ask whether requested openings are truly necessary or whether there is a safer path. The key is to connect each commonly used port to the business function it supports and the risk it introduces if opened broadly. This knowledge also supports incident response because unusual port usage can indicate scanning, tunneling, or misconfiguration. Managers do not need to troubleshoot at packet level, but they do need to recognize when a request would expose a sensitive service to a broad audience. That recognition is often what prevents a convenience change from becoming a lasting vulnerability.

Scenario rehearsal is a good way to see how these basics guide triage during an outage. Imagine users cannot reach an internal application, and multiple teams are pointing fingers. A leader with networking basics can ask whether the failure is name resolution, routing, or service reachability, and those three questions often narrow the problem quickly. If users can reach the service by address but not by name, the issue is likely D N S or related name service dependencies. If users cannot reach the service by either name or address, you then ask whether routing exists between the user segment and the application segment and whether filtering rules allow the necessary ports. If routing and filtering appear correct, you consider whether the service itself is down, overloaded, or blocked by host-based controls. You also consider whether a recent change altered a dependency, such as an updated firewall policy, a network route change, or a certificate issue affecting secure sessions. This structured triage avoids the common mistake of jumping straight to the most dramatic explanation. Networking basics give you a calm sequence that reduces time to diagnosis and reduces cross-team conflict.

Virtual Private Network (V P N) concepts are another area where leaders need clarity, because V P N is often misunderstood as a magic security blanket. A V P N creates an encrypted tunnel between a user or site and a network, protecting traffic in transit from eavesdropping and certain tampering risks. It can also extend network reach, making remote users appear as if they are on an internal network, depending on how it is configured. The key leadership insight is that encryption alone is not enough, because encryption protects the path but does not guarantee the endpoint is trustworthy or the user is authorized appropriately. If a compromised device connects through a V P N, the tunnel can deliver the attacker into internal networks with fewer friction points. If credentials are stolen, an attacker can use the V P N as a legitimate entry path, especially if access controls are weak. This is why V P N must be paired with strong authentication, device posture checks, and least privilege access policies. V P N protects confidentiality of traffic, but it does not replace identity assurance or segmentation decisions.

Network Address Translation (N A T) and firewalls are often discussed together, and managers benefit from understanding them without drowning in jargon. N A T changes addresses as traffic crosses a boundary, commonly allowing many internal devices to share a smaller set of external addresses. This can simplify addressing and can hide internal address structure from the outside, but it is not a security control by itself because it does not inherently enforce authorization. Firewalls are enforcement points that allow or deny traffic based on rules, such as source, destination, port, and sometimes application characteristics. Firewalls can be placed at network boundaries, between zones, and sometimes closer to workloads, and their effectiveness depends on rule quality and maintenance. Managers should be alert to the difference between having a firewall device and having a well-managed firewall policy. A permissive firewall is effectively a router with paperwork, while a disciplined firewall policy can materially reduce attack paths. Understanding this helps leaders ask about rule intent, default behaviors, logging, and review processes rather than being satisfied by the existence of a firewall product.

Tying protocols to monitoring signals and security controls is where networking literacy becomes directly useful for security leadership. D N S logs can reveal suspicious domains and unusual query behavior, which can signal phishing follow-through, malware activity, or command and control. T C P connection logs can reveal repeated failed connection attempts, which can indicate scanning or brute force behavior, and they can also support incident timelines because session-based traffic is easier to correlate. U D P flow logs can reveal unusual bursts or new destinations that may indicate tunneling or abuse of infrastructure protocols. Firewall logs reveal what was allowed and what was blocked, and that becomes evidence during incident investigations and policy reviews. V P N logs reveal who connected, from where, and when, which is critical for attribution and for detecting account misuse. When leaders can connect protocols to the signals they generate, they can prioritize monitoring investments and ask whether critical control points are logging decisions reliably. This also helps leaders interpret incident briefings, because they can understand why certain logs are missing or why certain conclusions are confident.

A helpful memory anchor is address, name, route, and transport explain most. Address refers to I P addressing, which tells you where a device is on a network. Name refers to D N S, which tells you how services are located by people and systems. Route refers to routing decisions that determine how traffic moves across segments and whether paths exist. Transport refers to T C P and U D P behavior and ports, which determine how applications communicate and what access decisions are needed. When leaders hold this anchor, they can structure questions and avoid getting lost in vendor terms or overly detailed troubleshooting narratives. It also helps in security architecture conversations, because segmentation and filtering are fundamentally about routes and transport rules, while naming and identity are often tied to service discovery and access enforcement. This anchor is not meant to oversimplify, but to provide a dependable mental model that covers most day-to-day conversations. When teams communicate using these consistent pillars, misinterpretation decreases and decisions get faster.

Consistent terms also matter because managers are translators across disciplines, and inconsistent language creates confusion and delay. If one team says network is down when they mean D N S is failing, the wrong teams get pulled in and the real work is delayed. If someone says port is blocked when they mean the service is down, the conversation shifts toward firewall policy rather than service health. If someone says V P N is secure without specifying what authentication and access controls are in place, leaders may assume risk is lower than it is. Using consistent terms means you describe whether a name resolves, whether a route exists, whether a port is reachable, and whether the application responds. That discipline makes status updates clearer and reduces emotional escalation during incidents because people can agree on what is actually failing. It also makes change requests more precise, which reduces the chance that broad firewall openings are approved for problems that have different root causes. Clarity of language is a form of risk reduction because it prevents mistakes.

For the mini-review, define D N S, T C P, and routing in one sentence each, because being able to explain them plainly is the marker of real understanding. D N S is the system that translates human-friendly names into the numeric addresses systems use to connect. T C P is a reliable, connection-based transport method that ensures data arrives in order and is retransmitted if lost. Routing is the process by which networks choose paths to deliver traffic from one address to another across interconnected segments. If you can say these sentences smoothly, you can also recognize when a technical explanation is drifting away from fundamentals. This is not about sounding technical; it is about being able to anchor conversations in reality when teams are stressed. Leaders who can do this are more effective during outages, incidents, and architecture decisions. The ability to define these concepts clearly also improves how you communicate with executives, because you can explain issues without resorting to jargon.

To conclude, choose one protocol to explain clearly today, and treat the exercise as leadership practice rather than technical homework. Pick something that shows up often in your environment, such as D N S, V P N, or T C P, and explain it in plain language along with why it matters to security and reliability. Then connect it to one control decision, such as what you would monitor, what you would restrict, or where you would enforce access. This habit builds confidence over time, because networking literacy grows through repeated explanation, not through one-time memorization. When leaders command the basics, they make better architectural decisions, they triage incidents faster, and they reduce the risk of approving changes that weaken defenses. Networking literacy is not about doing the engineer’s job; it is about knowing enough to lead the system responsibly.