Subject Code and TitleASSESSMENT 2 PART B BRIEFMIS311 CybersecurityCase Study Report and...

Question

Subject Code and TitleASSESSMENT 2 PART B BRIEFMIS311 CybersecurityCase Study Report and Presentation: Recommendation of Solutions ReportGroupPart B: 2500 words (+/- 10%)AssessmentIndividual/GroupLengthLearning OutcomesSubmissionThe Subject Learning Outcomes demonstrated by successful completion of the task below include:a) Investigate and analyse the tenets of cybersecurityb) Identify and communicate a range of threats and vulnerabilities to informational assets.c) Recommend and justify robust solutions to identified threats and vulnerabilities to cybersecurityd) Develop own professional practice and ethical standards around security issues and implementation of solutionsDue by 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday end of Module 5.2 35%100 marksWeightingTotal MarksAssessment TaskFollowing the report you drafted for Part A, you — as a group — are now required to propose and discuss specific solutions to address the identified vulnerabilities in Worthy College’s IT infrastructure and operation. These include all the threats/vulnerabilities identified in part A, but you should also add two more threats that you “discovered later”. (Note: you have the six threats from assessment 2, part A, and nowtwo morethreats.) Don’t go into deep detail about these two, just include them in your table of threats.In this assessment, discuss control measures that might be used to mitigate against the threats identified. Controls can be technical, they can be training, or physical barriers, or policy changes, etc. Also focus on the human factors and a robust company-wide policy framework.Note that your report is not a general discussion on cybersecurity. It is a report to the business following from part A. The mitigations in this report are beingsuggestedto the business as a plan for the future, they are not yet approved or adopted by the business.Extend your table from part Ato include the control suggestions and the estimated cost of controls (either in $/year or in total amount), including the two extra threats. The resulting table should be short and easy to read as a presentation to management. Make sure to include all the threats in the table and include useful headings, including the control techniques.MIS311_Assessment_1_Part B_Brief_Case Study Report_Recommendation of Solutions _Module 5.2Page1of7InstructionsRead part A brief again.Review your Assessment 2 Part A submission, especially the vulnerabilities identified.In your group, write a 2500-word report to Worthy College management that focuses on:a) Technical solutions in mitigating against recognised threats and enhancing securityb) The human factor and a robust company-wide policy frameworkEnsure that the recommendations made in the report are specific, actionable and based on thecase study.Report structure:Title page:Subject code and name, assessment number, report title, assessment due date, word count (actual), student names, student IDs, Torrens’s email addresses, learning facilitator, and subject coordinator.Table of Contents:It should list the report topics using decimal notation. It needs to include the main headings and subheadings with corresponding page numbers, using a format that makes the hierarchy of topics clear. Create the Table of Contents using Microsoft Word’s Table of Contents auto- generator rather than manually typing it out.Executive Summary:This should be a short summary (approximately 100 words) of what was done in the report. It is best written after the rest of the report and should be in past tense. Often executives only read the executive summary and so it must be a short overview of what was found and presented in the rest of the report. Long-winded, vague discussions on the importance of cybersecurity in today’s world etc. will not be acceptable.Introduction:It should provide a concise overview of the problem you have been asked to research, the main aims/purpose of the report, the objectives to be achieved by writing the report and how you investigated the problem. It needs to provide an outline of the sections of the report. This section should be XXXXXXXXXXwords in length.Body of the report (use appropriate headings in the body of the report):Ensure that you address the tasks listed above (approximately XXXXXXXXXXwords). Do NOT use generic words such as ‘Body, Body of the Report, Tasks’ as section headings. Create meaningful headings and subheadings that reflect the topic and content of your report.Conclusion:Restate the purpose of the report and key issues investigated and the related findings based on your research and analysis in about XXXXXXXXXXwords.ReferencesAppendices (if necessary)Before submitting your assessment, check it against the assessment criteria and the marking rubric included in this brief to ensure that you have satisfactorily addressed all the criteria that will be used to assess your submission.Download the Group Participation Matrix from Assessment 2 Part B section. Use this document to review your group members’ performance in this assessment and to specify their specific contribution made to the group work. This Group Participation Matrix document needs to be submitted individually through the Assessment 2 Part B submission link.MIS311_Assessment_1_Part B_Brief_Case Study Report_Recommendation of Solutions _Module 5.2Page2of7ReferencingIt is essential that you use appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research. Please see more information on referencing in thehttps://library.torrens.edu.au/academicskills/apa/toolSubmission InstructionsGroup SubmissionEach team will submit ONE Microsoft Word document (.doc or.docx) via the Assessment link in the main navigation menu in Blackboard. The Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the LMS portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.Peer Evaluation – Individual SubmissionEach individual student is to submit a complete d Group Participation Matrix document in the Peer Evaluation submission link. Please submit a peer review correctly, as no submission may result in zero grading for this assessment criteria.Academic IntegrityAll students are responsible for ensuring that all work submitted is their own and is appropriately referenced and academically written according to theAcademic Writing Guide. Students also need to have read and be aware of Torrens University Australia Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure and subsequent penalties for academic misconduct. These are viewable online athttp://www.torrens.edu.au/policies-and-formsStudents also must keep a copy of all submitted material and any assessment drafts.Special ConsiderationTo apply for special consideration for a modification to an assessment or exam due to unexpected or extenuating circumstances, please consult theAssessment Policy for Higher Education Coursework and ELICOSand, if applicable to your circumstance, submit a completedApplication for Assessment Special Consideration Formto your Learning FacilitatorMIS311_Assessment_1_Part B_Brief_Case Study Report_Recommendation of Solutions _Module 5.2Page3of7Assessment RubricAssessment AttributesFail(Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49%Pass (Functional) 50-64%Credit (Proficient) 65-74%Distinction (Advanced) 75-84%High Distinction (Exceptional XXXXXXXXXX%Knowledge and understanding of threats, and mitigation. Clearly discussed mitigationPercentage for this criterion = 40%Limited understanding of required concepts and knowledge in three (or less) aspects in enhancing cybersecurity.Key components of the assessment are not addressed.Adequate knowledge or understanding of the three aspects in enhancing cybersecurity.Some of the key components of the assessment are not addressedThorough knowledge or understanding of the three aspects in enhancing cybersecurity. Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.All key components of the assessment are addressed with an adequate capacity to explain and apply relevant key concepts.Highly developed understanding of the three aspects in enhancing cybersecurity.All of the key components are addressed. Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant key concepts.A sophisticated understanding of the three aspects in enhancing cybersecurity.All of the key components are addressed. Demonstrates mastery and application of key concepts.Content, presentation and purposePercentage for this criterion = 10%Demonstrates no awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment.Demonstrates limited awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment.Demonstrates consistent awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment.Demonstrates an advanced and integrated understanding of context and/or purpose of the assignment.Consistently demonstrates a systematic and critical understanding of context and purpose of the assignment.MIS311_Assessment_1_Part B_Brief_Case Study Report_Recommendation of Solutions_Module 5.2Page4of7Assessment AttributesFail(Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49%Pass (Functional) 50-64%Credit (Proficient) 65-74%Distinction (Advanced) 75-84%High Distinction (Exceptional XXXXXXXXXX%Analysis and application with synthesis of new knowledgePercentage for this criterion = 10%Limited synthesis and analysis.Limited application/ recommendations based upon analysis.Demonstrated analysis and synthesis of new knowledge with application. Shows the ability to interpret relevant information and literature.Well-developed analysis and synthesis with application of recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis.Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and justified recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis.Highly sophisticated and creative analysis, synthesis of new with existing knowledge.Recommendations are clearly justified based on the analysis/synthesis. Applying knowledge to new situations/other cases.Quality of information selected to support the case studyPercentage for this criterion = 20%Limited understanding of key concepts required to support the case study.Confuses logic and emotion. Information taken from reliable sources but without a coherent analysis or synthesis.Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact with little questioning.Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas.Often conflates/confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.Analysis and evaluation do not reflect expert judgement, intellectual independence, rigour and adaptability.Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts.Identifies logical flaws.Questions viewpoints of experts.Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts.Viewpoint of experts are subject to questioning.Analysis and evaluation reflect growing judgement, intellectual independence, rigour and adaptability.Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.Information is taken from sources with a high level of interpretation / evaluation to develop a comprehensive critical analysis or synthesis.Identifies gaps in knowledge. Exhibits intellectual independence, rigour, good judgement and adaptability.MIS311_Assessment_1_Part B_Brief_Case Study Report_Recommendation of Solutions_Module 5.2Page5of7Assessment AttributesFail(Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49%Pass (Functional) 50-64%Credit (Proficient) 65-74%Distinction (Advanced) 75-84%High Distinction (Exceptional XXXXXXXXXX%TeamworkPercentage for this criterion = 5%Does not participate effectively in a team environment.Places individual goals ahead of group responsibility.Hinders the group process and upsets the scheduleParticipates effectively in teams.Identifies team and individual goals, tasks, responsibilities and schedules.Contributes to group processes. Supports the team.Contributes to small group discussions to reach agreement on issues.Works together with others towards shared goals.Renegotiates responsibilities to meet needed change.Understands group dynamics and team roles.Facilitates team development.Renegotiates responsibilities, tasks and schedules to meet needed change.Builds team’s identity and commitment.Leads team. Evaluates team’s outcomes.Implements strategies for enhancing team effectiveness.Use of academic and discipline conventionsSpelling, grammar, sentence construction, appropriate use of credible resources. Correct citation of key resources using APA style of referencing.Percentage for this criterion = 10%Poorly written with errors in spelling and grammar.It demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas. There are mistakes in using the APA style.Written according to academic genre and has accurate spelling, grammar, sentence and paragraph construction.Demonstrates consistent use of credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed. There are some mistakes in using APA style.Written according to the academic genre.Demonstrates consistent use of credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas. There are no mistakes in using the APA style.Well written, and adheres to the academic genre.Consistently demonstrates expert use of good quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop appropriate arguments and statements.Shows evidence of reading beyond the key resources. There are no mistakes in using the APA style.Expertly written, and adheres to the academic genre.Demonstrates expert use of high-quality credible and relevant research sources to support and develop arguments and position statements.Shows extensive evidence of reading beyond the key resources. There are no mistakes in using the APA style.MIS311_Assessment_1_Part B_Brief_Case Study Report_Recommendation of Solutions_Module 5.2Page6of7The following Subject Learning Outcomes are addressed in this assessmentInvestigate and analyse the tenets of cybersecurityIdentify and communicate a range of threats and vulnerabilities to informational assets. Recommend and justify robust solutions to identified threats and vulnerabilities to cybersecuritySLO d) Develop own professional practice and ethical standards around security issues and implementation of solutions.SLO a)SLO b)SLO c)MIS311_Assessment_1_Part B_Brief_Case Study Report_Recommendation of Solutions_Module 5.2Page7of7

Amar Kumar · Accepted Answer

1. Technical solutions in mitigating against recognised threats and enhancing security
The method involved with making choices and measures to further develop amazing open doors and decline dangers to project goals is known as risk mitigation planning. Executing risk relief measures is the course of chance alleviation execution. Checking the advancement of hazard relief implies following known gambles, spotting arising chances, and measuring the proficiency of the gamble the executive’s techniques[1]. The risk mitigation stage involves making plans for making do, eliminating, or diminishing gamble to a sensible level. After an arrangement is set in motion, it is consistently assessed for viability fully intent on redirecting activity as needs be.
Risk Reduction Techniques- Rules overall for utilizing risk alleviation methods. These decisions depend on an assessment of the likelihood of event and reality of the repercussions for a given gamble. Numerous drives and projects, yet not all, can utilize these rules.
Expect/Accept:  Cooperate with the functional clients to foster a common cognizance of dangers and their belongings. Dangers can be characterized as significantly affecting customary timetable, cost, and execution principles. Dangers ought to likewise be characterized as the effect on mission execution got on by a downfall mechanical skill or execution. Acquire information about every one of these impacts. It is pivotal to remember clients for the mission influence characterization while choosing which "expect/acknowledge" choice will be utilized eventually. Clients will decide if tolerating the consequences of a risk is proper. Give buyers admittance to the dangers that are powerless, the countermeasures that can be utilized, and any likely lingering gambles. Assist the clients with understanding the time and monetary expenses.
Avoid:  Again, team up with clients to arrive at a common perspective of dangers' suggestions. Projections of timetable changes important to diminish risk related with mechanical development or additional advancement to expand execution ought to be given to clients. Decide the abilities that will be postponed and any impacts welcomed on by dependence on different drives. Clients are better ready to comprehend the pragmatic impacts of the "stay away from" decision with the assistance of this data.
Control: Break down potential gamble decrease methodologies to aid risk the board. For example, utilizing a monetarily accessible capacity rather to one that was created by a project worker is one other option. Search for reasonable arrangements from other Miter clients, business, and scholastics in laying out procedures for controlling gamble in your program. Take additional consideration to dissect the results of any essential design changes while assessing an answer from another organization.
Transfer: Moving power for a gamble region to another establishment can have the two advantages and disadvantages. At the point when the gamble includes a profoundly particular field of information that is remarkable in program workplaces, it could check out. Notwithstanding, relegating a gamble to another element might prompt conditions and a deficiency of control, which could introduce their own difficulties. By getting and keeping up with consciousness of organizations inside your client area that focus on specific requests and their answers,

Assessment Attributes	Fail (Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49%	Pass (Functional) 50-64%	Credit (Proficient) 65-74%	Distinction (Advanced) 75-84%	High Distinction (Exceptional XXXXXXXXXX%
Analysis and application with synthesis of new knowledge Percentage for this criterion = 10%	Limited synthesis and analysis. Limited application/ recommendations based upon analysis.	Demonstrated analysis and synthesis of new knowledge with application. Shows the ability to interpret relevant information and literature.	Well-developed analysis and synthesis with application of recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis.	Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and justified recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis.	Highly sophisticated and creative analysis, synthesis of new with existing knowledge. Recommendations are clearly justified based on the analysis/synthesis. Applying knowledge to new situations/other cases.
Quality of information selected to support the case study Percentage for this criterion = 20%	Limited understanding of key concepts required to support the case study. Confuses logic and emotion. Information taken from reliable sources but without a coherent analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact with little questioning.	Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas. Often conflates/confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. Analysis and evaluation do not reflect expert judgement, intellectual independence, rigour and adaptability.	Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. Identifies logical flaws. Questions viewpoints of experts.	Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading. Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. Viewpoint of experts are subject to questioning. Analysis and evaluation reflect growing judgement, intellectual independence, rigour and adaptability.	Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading. Information is taken from sources with a high level of interpretation / evaluation to develop a comprehensive critical analysis or synthesis. Identifies gaps in knowledge. Exhibits intellectual independence, rigour, good judgement and adaptability.

Assessment Attributes	Fail (Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49%	Pass (Functional) 50-64%	Credit (Proficient) 65-74%	Distinction (Advanced) 75-84%	High Distinction (Exceptional XXXXXXXXXX%
Teamwork Percentage for this criterion = 5%	Does not participate effectively in a team environment. Places individual goals ahead of group responsibility. Hinders the group process and upsets the schedule	Participates effectively in teams. Identifies team and individual goals, tasks, responsibilities and schedules. Contributes to group processes. Supports the team.	Contributes to small group discussions to reach agreement on issues. Works together with others towards shared goals. Renegotiates responsibilities to meet needed change.	Understands group dynamics and team roles. Facilitates team development. Renegotiates responsibilities, tasks and schedules to meet needed change.	Builds team’s identity and commitment. Leads team. Evaluates team’s outcomes. Implements strategies for enhancing team effectiveness.
Use of academic and discipline conventionsSpelling, grammar, sentence construction, appropriate use of credible resources. Correct citation of key resources using APA style of referencing. Percentage for this criterion = 10%	Poorly written with errors in spelling and grammar. It demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas. There are mistakes in using the APA style.	Written according to academic genre and has accurate spelling, grammar, sentence and paragraph construction. Demonstrates consistent use of credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed. There are some mistakes in using APA style.	Written according to the academic genre. Demonstrates consistent use of credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas. There are no mistakes in using the APA style.	Well written, and adheres to the academic genre. Consistently demonstrates expert use of good quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop appropriate arguments and statements. Shows evidence of reading beyond the key resources. There are no mistakes in using the APA style.	Expertly written, and adheres to the academic genre. Demonstrates expert use of high-quality credible and relevant research sources to support and develop arguments and position statements. Shows extensive evidence of reading beyond the key resources. There are no mistakes in using the APA style.

Subject Code and Title ASSESSMENT 2 PART B BRIEF MIS311 Cybersecurity Case Study Report and Presentation: Recommendation of Solutions Report Group Part B: 2500 words (+/- 10%) Assessment...

Solution

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

Submit New Assignment