cybersecurity attack
CarinaD
WritingRubric.pdf
CSC-321 - Technical Report Rubric
Area (max points) Poor Minimal Sufficient Above Average Excellent
Introduction (5 pts) Introduction does not frame the problem statement in the broader domain. (0 pt)
Introduction has considerable leaps in logic or unstated premises that creates a tenuous framing of the problem statement in the domain. (2 pts)
Introduction is well written and clearly frames the problem statement in the broader domain. This includes a broad initial framing and logical direction but has considerable gaps in logic. (3 pts)
Introduction is well written and clearly frames the problem statement in the broader domain. This includes a broad initial framing and a logical direction to the final statement with few gaps in logic. (4 pts)
Introduction is well written and clearly frames the problem statement in the broader domain. This includes a broad initial framing and a logical direction to the final statement with no gaps in logic. (5pts)
Vulnerabilities exploited (15 pts) Paper does not introduce technical, social, or operational issues that were exploited by the attack (0 pts)
Paper introduces technical, social, or operational issues that were exploited by the attack. The paper misses many necessary detail and lacks many details for a technical audience (6 pts)
Paper introduces technical, social, or operational issues that were exploited by the attack. The paper misses some necessary detail and misses sufficient detail for a technical audience (9 pts)
Paper introduces technical, social, or operational issues that were exploited by the attack. The paper misses some necessary detail or misses sufficient detail for a technical audience (12 pts)
Paper introduces technical, social, or operational issues that were exploited by the attack. The paper does not miss any necessary detail and includes sufficient detail for a technical audience (15 pts)
Financial impact, social impact, technological impact, and/or political impact (15 pts)
Paper does not discuss appropriate impacts (0 pts)
Paper discusses appropriate impacts but lacks sufficient details and misses many other impacts (6 pts)
Paper discusses appropriate impacts but lacks sufficient details and misses some other impacts (9 pts)
Paper discusses all appropriate impacts but lacks sufficient details for a technical audience (12 pts)
Paper discusses all appropriate impacts in sufficient details (15 pts)
Patches or training needed to fix (10 pts)
Paper does not discuss appropriate fixes (0 pts)
Paper discusses appropriate fixes but lacks sufficient details and misses many other fixes (3 pts)
Paper discusses appropriate fixes but lacks sufficient details and misses some other fixes (6 pts)
Paper discusses all appropriate fixes but lacks sufficient details for a technical audience (8 pts)
Paper discusses all appropriate patches or training in sufficient details (10 pts)
Similar vulnerabilities (10 pts) Insufficient related works discussing other vulnerabilities (0 pts)
Discusses 1 related vulnerability. Discussion lacks information or has excessive details (4 pts).
Discusses at least 2 related vulnerabilities. Discussion lacks information or has excessive details (6 pts).
Discusses at least 3 related vulnerabilities. Discussion lacks information or has excessive details (8 pts).
Discusses relevant related vulnerabilities. Discussion is informative without excessive details (10pts).
Assessment and recommendation for competing company (5 pts)
Paper does not discuss appropriate recommendations (0 pts)
Paper discusses recommendations fixes but lacks sufficient details and misses many other recommendations (3 pts)
Paper discusses appropriate recommendations but lacks sufficient details and misses some other recommendations (6 pts)
Paper discusses all appropriate recommendations but lacks sufficient details for a technical audience (8 pts)
Paper discusses all appropriate recommendations or training in sufficient details (10 pts)
Appropriate for a technical audience (5 pts)
Tone is inappropriate for a technical audience and is extremely casual (0 pts)
Tone is marginally appropriate for technical audience however is occasionally unclear and frequently too casual (2 pts)
Tone is marginally appropriate for technical audience, is occasionally unclear, and is unclear in 2-3 locations (3 pts)
Tone is appropriate for a technical audience, is sufficiently clear, however becomes too casual on 1 ocasion (4 pts)
Tone is appropriate for a technical audience, is clear, and never becomes too casual (5 pts)
Sufficient Citations (0 pts) 7 or more premises, related works, or social implication lack citations (-10 pts)
5 or 6 premises, related works, or social implication lack citations (-7 pts)
3 or 4 premises, related works, or social implication lack citations (-4 pts)
1 or 2 premises, related works, or social implication lack citations (-1 pt)
No premises, related works, or social implication lack citations (0 pts)
Formating (0 pts) 4, or more, formatting mistakes (justification, font size, headers, etc.) (-4 pts)
3 formatting mistakes (justification, font size, headers, etc.) (-3 pt)
2 formatting mistakes (justification, font size, headers, etc.) (-2 pt)
1 formatting mistakes (justification, font size, headers, etc.) (-1 pt)
No formatting mistakes (justification, font size, headers, etc.) (0 pt)
Organization (0pts) The flow of the paper distracts me from reading 4, or more, times (-10 pts)
The flow of the paper distracts me from reading 3 times (-7 pts)
The flow of the paper distracts me from reading 2 times (-4 pts)
The flow of the paper distracts me from reading 1 time (-1 pts)
The flow of the paper never distracts me from reading (0 pts)
Spelling and grammar (0pts) 10 or more mistakes (-10 pts)
7 to 9 mistakes (-7 pts) 4 to 6 mistakes (-4 pts) 1 to 3 mistakes (-1 pts) No mistakes (0 pts)
CSC-321 - Press release rubric
Area (max points) Poor Minimal Sufficient Above Average Excellent
Introduction (5 pts) Introduction does not frame the problem statement in the broader domain. (0 pt)
Introduction has considerable leaps in logic or unstated premises that creates a tenuous framing of the problem statement in the domain. (2 pts)
Introduction is well written and clearly frames the problem statement in the broader domain. This includes a broad initial framing and logical direction but has considerable gaps in logic. (3 pts)
Introduction is well written and clearly frames the problem statement in the broader domain. This includes a broad initial framing and a logical direction to the final statement with few gaps in logic. (4 pts)
Introduction is well written and clearly frames the problem statement in the broader domain. This includes a broad initial framing and a logical direction to the final statement with no gaps in logic. (5pts)
Vulnerabilities exploited (5 pts) Paper does not introduce technical, social, or operational issues that were exploited by the attack (0 pts)
Paper introduces technical, social, or operational issues that were exploited by the attack to a general audience but misses many important issues/vulnerabilities and details (2 pts)
Paper introduces technical, social, or operational issues that were exploited by the attack to a general audience but misses important issues/vulnerabilities (3 pts)
Paper introduces technical, social, or operational issues that were exploited by the attack to a general audience but misses important details (4 pts)
Paper introduces technical, social, or operational issues that were exploited by the attack to a general audience (5 pts)
Financial impact, social impact, technological impact, and/or political impact (10 pts)
Paper does not discuss appropriate impacts (0 pts)
Paper discusses appropriate impacts but lacks sufficient details and misses many other impacts (4 pts)
Paper discusses appropriate impacts but lacks sufficient details and misses some other impacts (6 pts)
Paper discusses all appropriate impacts but lacks sufficient details for a technical audience (8 pts)
Paper discusses all appropriate impacts in sufficient details (10 pts)
Patches or training needed to fix (5 pts)
Paper does not discuss appropriate fixes (0 pts)
Paper discusses appropriate fixes but lacks sufficient details and misses many other fixes (2 pts)
Paper discusses appropriate fixes but lacks sufficient details and misses some other fixes (3 pts)
Paper discusses all appropriate fixes but lacks sufficient details for a technical audience (4 pts)
Paper discusses all appropriate patches or training in sufficient details (5 pts)
Personal Protections (10 pts) Paper does not discuss appropriate personal protections (0 pts)
Paper discusses appropriate personal protections but lacks sufficient details and misses many other personal protections (3 pts)
Paper discusses appropriate personal protections but lacks sufficient details and misses some other personal protections (6 pts)
Paper discusses all appropriate personal protections but is too technical or too broad for a general audience (8 pts)
Paper discusses all appropriate personal protections for a general audience (10 pts)
Appropriate for a general audience (10 pts)
Tone is inappropriate for a general audience (0 pts)
Not possible (1 pt) Tone is appropriate for a general audience and meets one of the following criteria informative, objective, and entertaining (5 pts)
Tone is appropriate for a general audience and meets two of the following criteria informative, objective, and entertaining (8 pts)
Tone is appropriate for a general audience, informative, objective, and entertaining (10 pts)
Formating (0 pts) 4, or more, formatting mistakes (justification, font size, headers, etc.) (-4 pts)
3 formatting mistakes (justification, font size, headers, etc.) (-3 pt)
2 formatting mistakes (justification, font size, headers, etc.) (-2 pt)
1 formatting mistakes (justification, font size, headers, etc.) (-1 pt)
No formatting mistakes (justification, font size, headers, etc.) (0 pt)
Organization (0pts) The flow of the paper distracts me from reading 4, or more, times (-10 pts)
The flow of the paper distracts me from reading 3 times (-7 pts)
The flow of the paper distracts me from reading 2 times (-4 pts)
The flow of the paper distracts me from reading 1 time (-1 pts)
The flow of the paper never distracts me from reading (0 pts)
Spelling and grammar (0pts) 10 or more mistakes (-10 pts)
7 to 9 mistakes (-7 pts) 4 to 6 mistakes (-4 pts) 1 to 3 mistakes (-1 pts) No mistakes (0 pts)
CSC-321 - Executive summary rubric
Area (max points) Poor Minimal Sufficient Above Average Excellent
Introduction (5 pts) Introduction does not frame the problem statement in the broader domain. (0 pt)
Introduction has considerable leaps in logic or unstated premises that creates a tenuous framing of the problem statement in the domain. (2 pts)
Introduction is well written and clearly frames the problem statement in the broader domain. This includes a broad initial framing and logical direction but has considerable gaps in logic. (3 pts)
Introduction is well written and clearly frames the problem statement in the broader domain. This includes a broad initial framing and a logical direction to the final statement with few gaps in logic. (4 pts)
Introduction is well written and clearly frames the problem statement in the broader domain. This includes a broad initial framing and a logical direction to the final statement with no gaps in logic. (5pts)
Vulnerabilities exploited (5 pts) Paper does not introduce technical, social, or operational issues that were exploited by the attack (0 pts)
Paper introduces technical, social, or operational issues that were exploited by the attack to a executive audience but misses many important issues/vulnerabilities and details (2 pts)
Paper introduces technical, social, or operational issues that were exploited by the attack to an executive audience but misses important issues/vulnerabilities (3 pts)
Paper introduces technical, social, or operational issues that were exploited by the attack to an executive audience but misses important details (4 pts)
Paper briefly introduces technical, social, or operational issues that were exploited by the attack to an executive audience (5 pts)
Financial impact, social impact, technological impact, and/or political impact (15 pts)
Paper does not discuss appropriate impacts (0 pts)
Paper discusses appropriate impacts but lacks sufficient details and misses many other impacts (5 pts)
Paper discusses appropriate impacts but lacks sufficient details and misses some other impacts (9 pts)
Paper discusses all appropriate impacts but lacks sufficient details for a technical audience (12 pts)
Paper discusses all appropriate impacts in sufficient details (15 pts)
Patches or training needed to fix (5 pts)
Paper does not discuss appropriate fixes (0 pts)
Paper discusses appropriate fixes but lacks sufficient details and misses many other fixes (2 pts)
Paper discusses appropriate fixes but lacks sufficient details and misses some other fixes (3 pts)
Paper discusses all appropriate fixes but lacks sufficient details for a technical audience (4 pts)
Paper discusses all appropriate patches or training in sufficient details (5 pts)
Corporate recommendations (10 pts)
Paper does not discuss appropriate Corporate recommendations (0 pts)
Paper discusses appropriate Corporate recommendations but lacks sufficient details and misses many other Corporate recommendations(3 pts)
Paper discusses appropriate Corporate recommendations but lacks sufficient details and misses some other Corporate recommendations (6 pts)
Paper discusses all appropriate Corporate recommendations but is too technical or too broad for an executive audience (8 pts)
Paper discusses all appropriate Corporate recommendations for an executive audience (10 pts)
Appropriate for a executive audience (10 pts)
Tone is inappropriate for an executive audience (0 pts)
Not possible (1 pt) Tone is appropriate for an executive but occasionally has excessive detail and is too casual (5 pts)
Tone is appropriate for an executive but occasionally has excessive detail or is too casual (8 pts)
Tone is appropriate for an executive audience (10 pts)
Formating (0 pts) 4, or more, formatting mistakes (justification, font size, headers, etc.) (-4 pts)
3 formatting mistakes (justification, font size, headers, etc.) (-3 pt)
2 formatting mistakes (justification, font size, headers, etc.) (-2 pt)
1 formatting mistakes (justification, font size, headers, etc.) (-1 pt)
No formatting mistakes (justification, font size, headers, etc.) (0 pt)
Organization (0pts) The flow of the paper distracts me from reading 4, or more, times (-10 pts)
The flow of the paper distracts me from reading 3 times (-7 pts)
The flow of the paper distracts me from reading 2 times (-4 pts)
The flow of the paper distracts me from reading 1 time (-1 pts)
The flow of the paper never distracts me from reading (0 pts)
Spelling and grammar (0pts) 10 or more mistakes (-10 pts)
7 to 9 mistakes (-7 pts) 4 to 6 mistakes (-4 pts) 1 to 3 mistakes (-1 pts) No mistakes (0 pts)
