A lot of people in the security industry would not even consider "configuring firewalls and installing AV" to be security work, in most organizations that rests with the sysadmins and network engineers, who also have a varied and challenging field.
Basically, my advice is to scrap what the article suggests and instead prefer "intellectually stimulating" to "related to security" when diverting a bright child's interests. It's often easy to find something sufficiently intellectually stimulating if you don't focus on security. Also, something related to security isn't necessarily at all intellectually stimulating (again, please don't flip my quantifier...).
> I object to your dismissal of my industry as "configuring firewalls and installing AV".
This wasn't my intention. FTR I respect security professionals and IT folk of all stripes.
But there are boring jobs in every indsutry.
My observation is only that diverting a student to the nearest person whose job has anything to do with "cyber security" is not likely to end with that student showing up at a security research lab. Similarly, I think it's a laughably bad idea to try to get a kid who is already checking out of school to prep for something like a CREST certification exam.
> Certainly the security industry is not for everyone
This was more my other point.
I doubt that most students who are interested in computers and who are also acting out using computers are necessarily interested in computer security. I think that assuming this fundamentally misunderstands/conflates two very different things going on in the student's life -- their interest in computers/science/technology, and anti-social behavior.
> A lot of people in the security industry would not even consider "configuring firewalls and installing AV" to be security work
Unfortunately most of the teachers/parents reading that webpage are unlikely to know the difference.
That said, this webpage is dangerous and misleading for a lot of reasons, but I'll try to focus on the problems that are actionable:
1. The "warning signs" the article enumerates are almost certainly not significantly correlated with youth who commit cyber crimes. In other words, the warning signs are probably just some made up bullshit someone with arbitrary biases came up with and put online. (Even if it accurately describes every youth convicted of cyber crime, that still doesn't mean that it's remotely likely to be correlated with cyber crime.)
In my mind, there's no material difference between teenagers who bully geeks and the author of this article -- both are identifying people who are different from them and then bullying them for being different. The only difference is that the author of this article has fooled themselves into thinking they have a justifiable excuse for painting with a broad brush.
2. The focus on computer security in the alternatives is misplaced. Especially considering the "warning signs". Far better to find the kid some bright mentors who match them intellectually in any field than to focus arbitrarily on computers -- much less computer security! A socially isolated student who's teaching themselves to program is not likely to do much more than roll their eyes if you explain to them that they could spend their life configuring firewalls and installing AV.