Attacking More Than Just the Enterprise
|
Points: 60 |
Case Study 1: Attacking More Than Just the Enterprise |
|||
|
Criteria |
Unacceptable Below 70% F |
Fair 70-79% C |
Proficient 80-89% B |
Exemplary 90-100% A |
|
1. Evaluate the recent trend toward attacking small and medium businesses and identify the benefits that these types of businesses have which attract attackers. Weight: 20% |
Did not submit or incompletely evaluated the recent trend toward attacking small and medium businesses; did not submit or incompletely identified the benefits that these types of businesses have which attract attackers. |
Partially evaluated the recent trend toward attacking small and medium businesses; partially identified the benefits that these types of businesses have which attract attackers. |
Satisfactorily evaluated the recent trend toward attacking small and medium businesses; satisfactorily identified the benefits that these types of businesses have which attract attackers. |
Thoroughly evaluated the recent trend toward attacking small and medium businesses; thoroughly identified the benefits that these types of businesses have which attract attackers. |
|
2. Compare and contrast the digital forensic operations of small-sized companies to large companies in terms of costs, personnel, inexperience, naivety, etc. Weight: 15% |
Did not submit or incompletely compared and contrasted the digital forensic operations of small-sized companies to large companies in terms of costs, personnel, inexperience, naivety, etc. |
Partially compared and contrasted the digital forensic operations of small-sized companies to large companies in terms of costs, personnel, inexperience, naivety, etc. |
Satisfactorily compared and contrasted the digital forensic operations of small-sized companies to large companies in terms of costs, personnel, inexperience, naivety, etc. |
Thoroughly compared and contrasted the digital forensic operations of small-sized companies to large companies in terms of costs, personnel, inexperience, naivety, etc. |
|
3. Explain the common purpose of attacks on point-of-sale (POS) systems and identify why you as a security professional would have cause for concern for your customers’ POS systems. Weight: 15% |
Did not submit or incompletely explained the common purpose of attacks on point-of-sale (POS) systems; did not submit or incompletely identified why you as a security professional would have cause for concern for your customers’ POS systems. |
Partially explained the common purpose of attacks on point-of-sale (POS) systems; partially identified why you as a security professional would have cause for concern for your customers’ POS systems. |
Satisfactorily explained the common purpose of attacks on point-of-sale (POS) systems; satisfactorily identified why you as a security professional would have cause for concern for your customers’ POS systems. |
Thoroughly explained the common purpose of attacks on point-of-sale (POS) systems; thoroughly identified why you as a security professional would have cause for concern for your customers’ POS systems. |
|
4. Assess why and how these POS systems have become a prime target for hacking groups. Weight: 20% |
Did not submit or incompletely assessed why and how these POS systems have become a prime target for hacking groups. |
Partially assessed why and how these POS systems have become a prime target for hacking groups. |
Satisfactorily assessed why and how these POS systems have become a prime target for hacking groups. |
Thoroughly assessed why and how these POS systems have become a prime target for hacking groups. |
|
5. Examine the forensics challenges that exist for investigations on POS systems. Weight: 15% |
Did not submit or incompletely examined the forensics challenges that exist for investigations on POS systems. |
Partially examined the forensics challenges that exist for investigations on POS systems. |
Satisfactorily examined the forensics challenges that exist for investigations on POS systems. |
Thoroughly examined the forensics challenges that exist for investigations on POS systems. |
|
6. 2 references Weight: 5% |
No references provided |
Does not meet the required number of references; some or all references poor quality choices. |
Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices. |
Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices. |
|
7. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements Weight: 10% |
More than 6 errors present |
5-6 errors present |
3-4 errors present |
0-2 errors present |