| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| CYB-610 | CYB-610-O500 | Benchmark - OS Vulnerability | 50.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less than Satisfactory (65.00%) | Satisfactory (75.00%) | Good (85.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 100.0% |
| Defensive Tools | 10.0% | The student provides an incomplete description of the proactive and reactive defensive tools provided by the operating system vendors. Subject knowledge is not evident. | The student outlines a few components of the proactive and reactive defensive tools provided by the operating system vendors, but element details are lacking. Little subject knowledge is evident. | The student appropriately describes the proactive and reactive defensive tools provided by the operating system vendors; some element justifications are included. Subject knowledge appears to be good. | The student provides a detailed description of the proactive and reactive defensive tools provided by the operating system vendors; justifications are accurate. Subject knowledge is good. | The student comprehensively describes proactive and reactive defensive tools provided by the operating system vendors; information and justifications are accurate and appropriate. Subject knowledge is excellent. |
| Third Party Tools | 10.0% | The student provides an incomplete description of the third-party tools that further assist in mitigating cybersecurity threats. Subject knowledge is not evident. | The student outlines a few components of the third-party tools that further assist in mitigating cybersecurity threats, but element details are lacking. Little subject knowledge is evident. | The student appropriately describes third-party tools that further assist in mitigating cybersecurity threats; some element justifications are included. Subject knowledge appears to be good. | The student provides a detailed description of third-party tools that further assist in mitigating cybersecurity threats; justifications are accurate. Subject knowledge is good. | The student comprehensively describes third-party tools that further assist in mitigating cybersecurity threats; information and justifications are accurate and appropriate. Subject knowledge is excellent. |
| Methodologies (C 1.2) | 10.0% | The student provides an incomplete description of the different methodologies used by hackers who can penetrate both operating systems. Subject knowledge is not evident. | The student outlines a few components of the different methodologies used by hackers who can penetrate both operating systems, but element details are lacking. Little subject knowledge is evident. | The student appropriately describes the different methodologies used by hackers who can penetrate both operating systems; some element justifications are included. Subject knowledge appears to be good. | The student provides a detailed description of the different methodologies used by hackers who can penetrate both operating systems; justifications are accurate. Subject knowledge appears is good. | The student comprehensively describes the different methodologies used by hackers who can penetrate both operating systems; information and justifications are accurate and appropriate. Subject knowledge is excellent. |
| Chart Content | 10.0% | The student provides an incomplete chart and vaguely describes vulnerabilities found. | The student presents a chart that outlines the severity of at least two vulnerabilities. Descriptions of the potential side effects of the vulnerability becoming active are provided, but details are lacking. | The student presents a chart that describes the severity of at least three vulnerabilities. Descriptions of the potential side effects of the vulnerability becoming active are provided with minimal supporting details and examples. | The student presents a detailed chart that clearly explains the severity of at least four vulnerabilities. Descriptions of the potential side effects of the vulnerability becoming active are provided with some supporting details and examples. | The student presents an in-depth chart examining the severity of at least five vulnerabilities. Descriptions of the potential side effects of the vulnerability becoming active are provided with extensive details and examples. |
| Table Content | 10.0% | The student provides an incomplete table and vaguely describes types of vulnerabilities. | The student presents a table that outlines one to differing types of vulnerabilities for each operating system. Solutions to these vulnerabilities in the form of tools are presented, but details are lacking. | The student presents a table that describes some differing types of vulnerabilities for each operating system. Solutions to these vulnerabilities in the form of tools are presented with a few supporting details and examples. | The student presents a detailed table that illustrates multiple differing types of vulnerabilities for each operating system. Solutions to these vulnerabilities in the form of tools are presented with some supporting details and examples. | The student presents an in-depth table that fully illustrates all of the differing types of vulnerabilities for each operating system. Solutions to these vulnerabilities in the form of tools are presented with extensive details and examples. |
| System Security Trends | 20.0% | The student provides incomplete coverage of trends found regarding each operating systems security efforts. | The student outlines a few trends found regarding each operating systems security efforts; details are lacking. | The student appropriately describes trends found regarding each operating systems security efforts; some rationales are included. | The student provides detailed evidence of trends found regarding each operating systems security efforts; rationales are accurate. | The student comprehensively provides evidence of trends found regarding each operating systems security efforts. The student draws warranted conclusions. Information and rationales are accurate and appropriate. |
| Sources | 10.0% | No outside academic sources are used to support major points. | Few relevant sources beyond assigned readings are used to support major points. Important relevant sources are neglected. Quoted material and paraphrasing are overused. | Sources are adequate, relevant, and extend beyond assigned readings. Quoted material and paraphrasing are included to support major points and writer's idea development. | Sources are academic, current, and/or relevant to support major points. Quoted material and paraphrasing is used effectively and consistently to support the major points and writer's idea development. | Sources are academic, comprehensive, current, and/or relevant. Quoted material and paraphrasing expertly support, extend, and inform ideas but do not substitute for the writer's own idea development. Sources are well synthesized to support major points. |
| Argument Logic and Construction | 10.0% | Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. | Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. | Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. | Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.) | 5.0% | Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident. Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of primer prose indicates writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately. | Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech appropriately. | Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part. | The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to communicate clearly. | The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) | 5.0% | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are employed. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Audience-appropriate language is employed. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech. | The writer is clearly in command of standard, written academic English. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
Ripple32
Rubric_Print_Format1.xlsx
