SEC 435 Case Study

profileninkinvoyn

Research the web and find an appropriate incident related to either a successful or failed penetration testing effort, or a successful or unsuccessful hacking attempt against an organization, business or government facility.  Lay out the details of the case, and provide your analysis of what was done and why, and speculate on what should have been done, or could have been done differently.  As part of your analysis, you can speculate on what you might have done to change the outcome of your particular case.  Draw specific lessons from the case and possible recommendations for future situations.  

 

Write a paper with no less than six pages in which you:

1.       Research the web and identify a case study with an appropriate situation related to penetration testing or hacking for or against a business, organization, or government facility.  

2.       Lay out the case details, and provide your analysis of what was done and why, the results of the effort, the specific threats and vulnerabilities, and what mitigation was attempted or should have been attempted.

3.       You may speculate on what actions you might have taken in a similar situation as part of your analysis.

4.       Draw specific lessons and recommendations from your analysis of the case as part of the conclusion, and have a strong concluding paragraph.  Be sure to revise your introduction to reflect what the paper accomplished once you finish your first draft.

 

Use no less than eight quality resources in this assignment. Note: Wikipedia and similar websites do not qualify as quality resources.

 

 

Rubric:

 

 

 

Assignment: Case Study

Criteria

 

Unacceptable
Below 60 % F

Meets Minimum Expectations
60-69 % D

 

Fair
70-79 % C

 

Proficient
80-89 % B

 

Exemplary
90-100 % A

1.  Research the web and identify a case study with an appropriate situation related to penetration testing or hacking for or against a business, organization, or government facility.  

Lay out the case details, and provide your analysis of what was done and why, the results of the effort, the specific threats and vulnerabilities, and what mitigation was attempted or should have been attempted.
Weight: 40%

Did not submit or incompletely analyzed a case study related to penetration testing or hacking against a business, organization, or government facility.

Insufficiently provided a summary of the case, or lacked sufficient details to provide a sound analysis, or did not provide sufficient detail on threats, vulnerabilities or mitigation.

Insufficiently analyzed a case study related to penetration testing or hacking against a business, organization, or government facility.

Provided only cursory or superficial details of the case, failed to sufficiently develop one’s analysis, or had missing detail on threats, vulnerabilities or mitigation.

Sufficiently covered the bare essentials of a case, and minimum analysis of a case study related to penetration testing or hacking against a business, organization, or government facility.

Provided a basic summary of the case, but lacked some key details or failed to sufficiently develop all arguments to provide a sound analysis, or had missing detail on threats, vulnerabilities or mitigation.

Satisfactorily analyzed a case study related to penetration testing or hacking against a business, organization, or government facility.

Provided a good summary of the case, developed key arguments,  had sufficient details to provide a sound analysis, and had good detail on threats, vulnerabilities or mitigation.

Thoroughly analyzed a case study related to penetration testing or hacking against a business, organization, or government facility.

Had a detailed case summary, fully develop all arguments, and provide details as needed to develop the discussion on threats, vulnerabilities, and mitigation.

2. Draw specific lessons and recommendations as part of the conclusion, and have a strong concluding paragraph.   Be sure to revise your introduction to reflect what the paper accomplished once you finish your first draft.
Weight: 40%

Did not submit lessons and takeaway in the conclusion, or have concluding paragraph, or a paragraph or less of closing statement that only partially touches upon what was presented in the body.

Does not have an introduction, or just a partial introduction.

Had insufficient or partial lessons and takeaway in the conclusion, or weak concluding paragraph, or a paragraph or less of closing statement that touches upon what was presented in the body, or provides only a summary of key points. 

Does not have a complete or just a partial introduction.

Has some or adequate lessons and takeaway in the conclusion, or weak concluding paragraph, or a paragraph or less of closing statement that touches upon what was presented in the body, or provides only a summary of key points. 

Does not have a complete introduction, or is missing a key element of an introduction.

Covers most of the key lessons and takeaway in the conclusion, or recommendations, but may fall short on some detail. 

Has a good to excellent introduction but may be missing an element.

Thoroughly develops a multi-paragraph conclusion of key lessons and recommendations with sufficient depth and detail to lead to a strong concluding paragraph.

Fully introduces the paper setting both the tone and scope of what the paper accomplished.

3. Eight (8) references
Weight: 10%

No references provided

Does not meet the required number of references; all references poor quality choices.

Does not meet the required number of references; some references poor quality choices.

Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices.

Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices.

4. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements.
Weight: 10%

More than 8 errors present

7-8 errors present

5-6 errors present

3-4 errors present

0-2 errors present

 

 

 

 

    • 4 years ago
    • 30
    Answer(1)

    Purchase the answer to view it

    NOT RATED
    • attachment
      order_33452_revised.docx