|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Security and Technology Issues
|
Level 5
|
Level 4
|
Level 3
|
Level 2
|
Level 1
|
|
Technology Issues
|
10 points
Identifies at least 10 security or technology issues based on the case study.
|
8 points
Identifies at least 8 security or technology issues based on the case study.
|
6 points
Identifies at least 6 security or technology issues based on the case study.
|
3 points
Identifies at least 3 security or technology issues based on the case study. The discussion lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources.
|
0 points
Doesn’t identify any security or technology issues based on the case study.
|
|
Security Issues
|
10 points
Clearly describes and relates information security and other technology issues to confidentiality, integrity and availability (CIA). Synthesizes and applies material and document relationships.
|
8 points
Basically describes and relates information security and other technology issues to confidentiality, integrity and availability (CIA). Synthesizes and applies some material and document relationships.
|
6 points
Weakly describes and relates information security and other technology issues to confidentiality, integrity and availability (CIA). Some synthesizing and application or applies material and document relationships.
|
3 points
Little description and relating information security and other technology issues to confidentiality, integrity and availability (CIA). Little synthesizing or application of material and document relationships. The discussion lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources.
|
0 points
No description or relationship of information security or other technology issues to confidentiality, integrity and availability (CIA). Doesn’t synthesize or apply material and document relationships.
|
|
Risks and Challengess
|
Level 5
|
Level 4
|
Level 3
|
Level 2
|
Level 1
|
|
ID Risks and Challenges
|
5 points
Clearly identifies and articulates the risks and challenges from the case study. Links all risks to technologies identified.
|
4 points
Basically identifies and articulates the risks and challenges from the case study. Links most risks to technologies identified.
|
2 points
Weakly identifies and articulates the risks and challenges from the case study. Links few risks to technologies identified.
|
1 point
Little identification or articulation of the risks and challenges from the case study. May not link any risks to technologies identified. (Or, inappropriate or excessive copying from other authors' work.)
|
0 points
No identification or articulation of the risks and challenges from the case study. No links of risks to technologies identified.
|
|
Apply Risk ID
|
10 points
Synthesizes and applies risk identification and challenges. Derives new paradigms appropriately based on research and lessons learned.
|
8 points
Basically synthesizes and applies risk identification and challenges. Derives some new paradigms appropriately based on research and lessons learned.
|
6 points
Weakly synthesizes and applies risk identification and challenges. Derives few new paradigms appropriately based on research or lessons learned.
|
3 points
Little synthesis or application of risk identification or challenges. Derives little new paradigms appropriately based on research and lessons learned. (Or, inappropriate or excessive copying from other authors' work.)
|
0 points
No synthesis or application of risk identification or challenges. No new paradigms based on research or lessons learned.
|
|
Security Strategy
|
Level 5
|
Level 4
|
Level 3
|
Level 2
|
Level 1
|
|
Define Strategy
|
5 points
Each defined strategy solution clearly mitigate the risk or issue.
|
4 points
Most defined strategy solutions basically mitigate the risk or issue.
|
2 points
Defined strategy solutions weakly mitigate the risk or issue.
|
1 point
Little defined strategy solutions mitigate the risk or issue. (Or, inappropriate or excessive copying from other authors' work.)
|
1 point
No defined strategy solutions that will mitigate any risk or issue.
|
|
Relate Solutions
|
10 points
Clearly identifies security solutions that consist of people, processes and technologies that relate to the risks. Covers all three requirements.
|
8 points
Basically identifies security solutions that consist of people, processes and technologies that relate to the risks. Covers at least two of the three requirements.
|
6 points
Weakly identifies security solutions that consist of people, processes and technologies that relate to the risks. Covers at least one of the requirements.
|
3 points
Little identification of security solutions that consist of people, processes or technologies that relate to the risks. May not cover one of the requirements. (Or, inappropriate or excessive copying from other authors' work.)
|
0 points
Doesn’t identify security solutions that consist of people, processes or technologies that relate to the risks. Doesn’t cover any of the three requirements.
|
|
Link Solutions
|
5 points
Clearly describes the linkage between each solution and the steps in the case study.
|
4 points
Basically describes the linkage between each solution and the steps in the case study.
|
2 points
Weakly describes the linkage between each solution and the steps in the case study.
|
1 point
Little description of the linkage between each solution or the steps in the case study. (Or, inappropriate or excessive copying from other authors' work.)
|
0 points
No description of any linkage between each solution or steps in the case study.
|
|
Timeline
|
Level 5
|
Level 4
|
Level 3
|
Level 2
|
Level 1
|
|
Defines Tasks
|
5 points
Clear and detailed timeline that summarizes at least 10 of the technology solutions being recommended. Includes clear and defined tasks for each solution.
|
4 points
Basic and descriptive timeline. Summarizes at least 8 of the solutions being recommended. Includes basic and descriptive tasks for most solutions.
|
2 points
Weak and poorly detailed timeline. Summarizes at least 6 of the solutions recommended. Includes weak and poorly defined tasks for some solutions.
|
1 point
Little defined timeline. Summarizes at least 3 solutions being recommended. May miss clear and defined tasks for some solutions. (Or, inappropriate or excessive copying from other authors' work.)
|
0 points
No sufficient details in timeline. No summary of solutions being recommended.
No clear and defined tasks for each solution.
|
|
Prioritize Tasks
|
5 points
Major tasks are clearly prioritized according their importance to mitigating the risks and issues found.
|
4 points
Major tasks basically prioritized according their importance to mitigating the risks or issues found.
|
2 points
Major tasks weakly prioritized according their importance to mitigating the risks and issues found.
|
1 point
Few tasks prioritized according their importance to mitigating the risks or issues found. (Or, inappropriate or excessive copying from other authors' work.)
|
0 points
No tasks prioritized according their importance to mitigating the risks or issues found.
|
|
Define Resources
|
5 points
Clearly defined people resources (by type) that support each task in the timeline.
|
4 points
Basically defined people resources (by type) that support each task in the timeline.
|
2 points
Weakly defined people resources (by type) that support each task in the timeline.
|
1 point
Little defined people resources (by type) that support each task in the timeline. (Or, inappropriate or excessive copying from other authors' work.)
|
0 points
No defined people resources (by type) that support each task in the timeline.
|
|
Remediation Plan
|
Level 5
|
Level 4
|
Level 3
|
Level 2
|
Level 1
|
|
Mitigation
|
5 points
Clearly describes and discusses high level plans that mitigate all technology issues identified. Provides clear detail and rationale to mitigate issues identified.
|
4 points
Basically describes and discusses high level plans that mitigate all technology issues identified. Provides clear detail and rationale to mitigate issues identified.
|
2 points
Weakly describes and discusses high level plans that mitigate all technology issues identified. Provides clear detail and rationale to mitigate issues identified.
|
1 point
Little description or discussion of high level plans that mitigate all technology issues identified. Provides clear detail and rationale to mitigate issues identified. (Or, inappropriate or excessive copying from other authors' work.)
|
0 points
No description or discussion of high level plans that mitigate all technology issues identified. No detail or rationale to mitigate issues identified.
|
|
Next Steps
|
5 points
Clearly describes next steps that must be taken to resolve all issues identified.
|
4 points
Basically describes next steps that must be taken to resolve all issues identified.
|
2 points
Weakly describes next steps that must be taken to resolve all issues identified.
|
1 point
Little description of next steps that may be taken to resolve some issues identified. (Or, inappropriate or excessive copying from other authors' work.)
|
0 points
Doesn’t describe next steps that must be taken to resolve all issues identified.
|
|
Finds and Applies Knowledge
|
Level 5
|
Level 4
|
Level 3
|
Level 2
|
Level 1
|
|
Use of Authoritative Sources
|
5 points
Used at least 5 authoritative or scholarly sources in paper. No APA style errors in sources.
|
4 points
Used at least 3 authoritative or scholarly sources in paper. No more than 1 APA errors in sources.
|
3 points
Used at least 2 authoritative or scholarly sources in paper. No more than 2 APA errors in sources.
|
1 point
May have used 1 authoritative or scholarly source in paper. May not have used APA style formatting.
|
0 points
No authoritative or scholarly sources used in paper.
|
|
Citation of Sources
|
5 points
All sources cited. No errors in citing material in paper.
|
4 points
All but 1 source cited. Had no more than 5 citing errors in paper.
|
2 points
All but 2 sources cited. Had no more than 10 citing errors in paper.
|
1 point
All but 3 sources cited. Had less than 15 APA citing errors in paper.
|
0 points
No sources cited or had more than 15 APA citing errors in paper.
|
|
Organization, Execution and Appearance
|
Level 5
|
Level 4
|
Level 3
|
Level 2
|
Level 1
|
|
Formatting
|
5 points
Prepared MS Word document, used consistent formatting, section subheadings, submitted one file, used instructor provided template, correct coversheet and separate reference page and meets minimum page count of 5 pages.
|
4 points
MS Word document didn’t follow up to two (2) of the following: used consistent formatting, section subheadings, submitted one file, used instructor provided template, correct coversheet and separate reference page and meets minimum page count of 5 pages.
|
2 points
MS Word document didn’t follow up to four (4) of the following: used consistent formatting, section subheadings, submitted one file, used instructor provided template, correct coversheet and separate reference page and meets minimum page count of 5 pages.
|
1 point
MS Word document followed only one (1) of the following: used consistent formatting, section subheadings, submitted one file, used instructor provided template, correct coversheet and separate reference page and meets minimum page count of 5 pages.
|
0 points
Non MS Word document didn’t any of the following: used consistent formatting, section subheadings, submitted one file, used instructor provided template, correct coversheet and separate reference page and meets minimum page count of 5 pages.
|
|
Grammar and Punctuation
|
5 points
No grammar errors, use of first/second person, spelling or punctuation errors.
|
4 points
Less than 5 grammar errors, use of first/second person, spelling or punctuation errors.
|
2 points
Less than 10 grammar errors, use of first/second person, spelling or punctuation errors.
|
1 point
Less than 15 grammar errors, use of first/second person, spelling or punctuation errors.
|
0 points
More than 15 grammar errors, use of first/second person, spelling or punctuation errors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hansbke17
Project1GAPANALYSIS.docx
