Case Study 2

Criteria

Excellent

Outstanding

Acceptable

Needs Improvement

Needs Significant Improvement

Missing or Unacceptable

Introduction or Overview for the Case Study

20 points

Provided an excellent introduction or overview of digital government which provided definitions and addressed the laws, regulations, and policies which require that federal agencies provide information and services via the Web. The overview appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

18 points

Provided an outstanding introduction or overview of digital government which provided definitions and addressed the laws, regulations, and policies which require that federal agencies provide information and services via the Web. The overview appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

16 points

Provided an overview of digital government discussed the laws and policies which require that federal agencies provide information and services via the Web. The overview appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.

14 points

Provided an overview of digital government but, the section lacked important details about the case. Information from authoritative sources was cited and used in the overview.

10 points

Attempted to provide an introduction to the case study but this section lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources.

0 points

The introduction and/or overview sections of the paper were off topic. 

Review of a Digital Government Website

20 points

Provided an excellent overview of the information and services provided by the selected digital government Website. Provided full, complete, and concise answers to the following questions:

a. What types of information or services are available via the selected Website?

b. What population does this Website serve (who is the intended audience)?

c. What sensitivity level which should be assigned to the Website (use FIPS 199 criteria)?

d. What security issues were observed during the review? 

Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

18 points

Provided an outstanding overview of the information and services provided by the selected digital government Website. Provided answers for the following questions:

a. What types of information or services are available via the selected Website?

b. What population does this Website serve (who is the intended audience)?

c. What sensitivity level which should be assigned to the Website (use FIPS 199 criteria)?

d. What security issues were observed during the review? 

Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

16 points

Provided an overview of the information and services provided by the selected digital government Website. Answered the following questions:

a. What types of information or services are available via the selected Website?

b. What population does this Website serve (who is the intended audience)?

c. What security issues were observed during the review? 

Appropriately used information from  1 or more authoritative sources.

14 points

Provided a review of a digital government website, but the discussion lacked important details. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.

9 points

Provided a discussion of the information and services provided by digital government websites. The discussion lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources.

0 points

This section was missing, off topic, or failed to provide information about a digital government website.

Web Application Architectures and Security Issues

15 points

Provided an excellent discussion of Web application architectures and common / frequent security issues inherent in the use of Web applications in the context of digital government Websites. Discussion included 5 or more examples of security issues. Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

14 points

Provided an outstanding discussion of Web application architectures and common / frequent security issues inherent in the use of Web applications in the context of digital government Websites. Discussion included 3 or more examples of security issues. Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

13 points

Provided a description of Web application architectures. Discussed common / frequent security issues inherent in the use of Web applications in the context of digital government Websites. Discussion included at least one example of a relevant security issue. Appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.

11 points

Discussed web application architecture and security issues. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.

4 points

Mentioned web application architectures and security issues. Discussion was substantially lacking in content and/or organization.

0 points

Section was missing or off topic.

Best Practices and Recommendations for Ensuring Security of Digital Government Websites

15 points

Provided an excellent discussion of best practices for ensuring Web application security during the design, implementation, and operation of digital government websites. Included 5 or more best practices (with recommendations) which could be implemented to improve the security of digital government websites. Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

14 points

Provided an outstanding discussion of best practices for ensuring Web application security during the design, implementation, and operation of digital government websites. Included 3 or more best practices (with recommendations) which could be implemented to improve the security of digital government websites. Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

13 points

Provided a discussion of best practices for ensuring Web application security for digital government website. Included at least one best practice example for improving the security of digital government websites. Appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.

11 points

Discussion provided some information about best practices and included recommendations for improving security for digital government websites. Mentioned information obtained from authoritative sources.

4 points

Included recommendations for improving security in the context of digital government websites but the discussion lacked detail and/or was not supported by information from authoritative sources.

0 points

This section was missing, off topic, or failed to address best practices and/or recommendations.

Addressed security issues using standard cybersecurity terminology

5 points

Demonstrated excellence in the integration of standard cybersecurity terminology into the case study.

4 points

Provided an outstanding integration of standard cybersecurity terminology into the case study.

3 points

Integrated standard cybersecurity terminology into the into the case study

2 points

Used standard cybersecurity terminology but this usage was not well integrated with the discussion.

1 point

Misused standard cybersecurity terminology.

0 points

Did not integrate standard cybersecurity terminology into the discussion.

APA Formatting for Citations and Reference List

5 points

Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. Reference list entries and in-text citations are correctly formatted using the appropriate APA style for each type of resource.

4 points

Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. One or two minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.

3 points

Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. No more than 3 minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.

2 points

Work has no more than three paragraphs with omissions of citations crediting sources for facts and information. Work contains a reference list containing entries for cited resources. Work contains no more than 5 minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.

1 point

Work attempts to credit sources but demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand and apply the APA formatting standard as defined in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).

0 points

Reference list is missing. Work demonstrates an overall failure to incorporate and/or credit authoritative sources for information used in the paper.

Professionalism Part I: Organization & Appearance

5 points

Submitted work shows outstanding organization and the use of color, fonts, titles, headings and sub-headings, etc. is appropriate to the assignment type.

4 points

Submitted work has minor style or formatting flaws but still presents a professional appearance. Submitted work is well organized and appropriately uses color, fonts, and section headings (per the assignment’s directions).

3 points

Organization and/or appearance of submitted work could be improved through better use of fonts, color, titles, headings, etc. OR Submitted work has multiple style or formatting errors. Professional appearance could be improved.

2 points

Submitted work has multiple style or formatting errors. Organization and professional appearance need substantial improvement.

1 point

Submitted work meets minimum requirements but has major style and formatting errors. Work is disorganized and needs to be rewritten for readability and professional appearance.

0 points

Submitted work is poorly organized and formatted. Writing and presentation are lacking in professional style and appearance. Work does not reflect college level writing skills.

Professionalism Part II: Execution

15 points

No formatting, grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors.

14 points

Work contains minor errors in formatting, grammar, spelling or punctuation which do not significantly impact professional appearance.

13 points

Errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation which detract from professional appearance of the submitted work.

11 points

Submitted work has numerous errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation. Work is unprofessional in appearance.

4 points

Submitted work is difficult to read / understand and has significant errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, punctuation, or word usage.

0 points

Submitted work is poorly executed OR does not reflect college level work.

Overall Score

Excellent

90 or more

Outstanding

80 or more

Acceptable

70 or more

Needs Improvement

56 or more

Needs Significant Improvement

36 or more

Missing or Unacceptable

0 or more