PLEASE READ ALL ASSIGNMENT REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING THE ATTACHED GRADING RUBRIC BEFORE AGREEING TO DO THE WORK. THANK YOU.Advanced persistent threats (APTs) have been thrust into the spotlight due to th
| Competencies | |||||
| 1.1: Create oral, written, or visual communications appropriate to the audience, purpose, and context. | 4 points Key Criteria: Tailors communication to purpose, context, and target audience. Clearly articulates the thesis and purpose, and supports the thesis and purpose with authentic and appropriate evidence. Provides smooth transitions and leaves no awkward gaps from point to point. Shows coherent progress from the introduction to the conclusion with no unnecessary sections. | 3 points Key Criteria: Tailors communication to purpose, context, and target audience. Articulates the thesis and purpose, and supports the thesis and purpose with authentic and appropriate evidence. Generally provides smooth transitions and leaves few awkward gaps from point to point. Shows identifiable progress from the introduction to the conclusion with no unnecessary sections. | 2 points Key Criteria: Considers the purpose, context, and target audience. Articulates the thesis and purpose, and shows some evidence supporting both. Some transitions are not smooth, and there are occasional gaps or awkward connections from point to point. There is a sense of progress from the introduction through the conclusion, but the organization may not be completely clear. | 1 point Key Criteria: Does not tailor communication well in terms of purpose, context, and target audience. Provides a weak thesis, unclear purpose, and little or no evidence to support points. Transitions may be rough or nonexistent, and there are significant gaps or connections between points that leave sections incomprehensible. Progress from the introduction through the conclusion is difficult to decipher, and there may be some material that is unrelated to thesis and purpose. | 0 points Key Criteria: Does not tailor communication in terms of purpose, context, and target audience. Lacks a good thesis and has little or no evidence to support a thesis. Transitions are rough or nonexistent, and there are few discernable connections from point to point. There is no identifiable progress from the introduction through the conclusion, and/or there is substantial material that is unrelated to thesis and purpose. |
| 1.2: Communicate using appropriate writing conventions, including spelling, grammar, mechanics, word choice, and format. | 4 points Uses a format that is highly appropriate to the writing task and carefully tailors the style and tone to the specific audience. Aligns both the writing style and grammar usage to standards appropriate to the task. | 3 points Uses a format that is appropriate to the writing task and tailors the style and tone to the specific audience. Aligns both the writing style and grammar usage to standards appropriate to the task. | 2 points Generally has a clear purpose, but there may be a gap between the format used and the writing task. Fails to fully align the style and tone to the audience, or fails to fully define the audience for the writing task. Has some style or grammar errors and may not be well aligned to standards appropriate to the task. | 1 point Lacks an appropriate format for the writing task and fails to align the style and tone, giving the sense that the audience for the writing task is not identified or misidentified. Features so many errors in writing style and grammar usage that communication is obscured. | 0 points Uses a completely inappropriate format for the writing task, or the intentional use of format is impossible to discern. The work fails to align with the task or identify the audience. Features so many egregious errors in writing style and grammar usage that there is little or no communication. |
| 1.3: Incorporate credible and relevant sources in development and support of ideas. | 4 points Meaningfully supports, extends, and informs the author's original thesis or idea using a variety of credible sources. Evaluates information in the writing for credibility, bias, quality of evidence, and quality of reasoning, and smoothly integrates an appropriate balance of original content with supporting sources. | 3 points Supports, extends, and informs the author's original thesis or idea using a number of credible sources. Evaluates information in the writing for credibility, bias, quality of evidence, and quality of reasoning, and integrates an appropriate balance of original content with supporting sources. | 2 points Uses sources to support and inform the author's original thesis or idea, but some sources may not be fully credible or relevant. Lacks evidence that information has been evaluated for credibility, bias, quality of evidence, or quality of reasoning, and may not smoothly integrate sources in some places. Lacks an appropriate balance of original content with supporting sources. | 1 point Uses few sources to support and inform the author's original thesis or idea, and the sources that are used may be irrelevant. No evidence that source information has been evaluated for credibility, bias, quality of evidence, or quality of reasoning, and lacks smooth integration of sources. Substantially lacks balance of original content with supporting sources. | 0 points Lacks sources to support and inform the author's thesis or idea. Fails to evaluate information for credibility, bias, quality of evidence, or quality of reasoning |
| 1.4: Make clear the relationship between information obtained from others and content created by you, and attribute all sources ethically and legally. | 4 points Accurately and appropriately identifies sources and distinguishes them from original content. Conveys source content using summary, paraphrase, and quotes as most appropriate to the task, and maintains an excellent balance of each. Cites sources correctly in accordance with disciplinary conventions. | 3 points Identifies sources and distinguishes them from original content. Conveys source content using summary, paraphrase, and quotes as appropriate to the task, and generally maintains a balance of each. Generally cites sources correctly in accordance with disciplinary conventions, although there may be a few minor errors in citation style. | 2 points Makes an effort to distinguish between original content and sources, but there may be a few places where the distinction is unclear. Attempts to summarize, paraphrase, or use quotes as appropriate to the task, but there may be an overabundance or under use of quotes. Attempts to cite all sources correctly in accordance with disciplinary conventions, but there may be lapses or gaps in citation. | 1 point Fails to distinguish between original content and sources or the distinction is obscured. Uses few instances of summary, paraphrase, or direct quotes, and cited sources are substantially incorrect. | 0 points Fails to distinguish between original content and sources. Shows no effort to summarize, paraphrase, or quote material. Fails to cite sources, or cites sources that are not related to the work. |
| 2.1: Identify and frame a problem or issue. | 4 points Accurately and thoroughly identifies and summarizes the problem, using supporting details. Thoroughly identifies potential underlying causes or conditions contributing to the issue or problem, and meaningfully and accurately considers the context. Integrates insightful, original, or well-formulated questions that inform the direction of the investigation of the problem or question. Includes information that is highly relevant to the issue or problem. | 3 points Identifies and summarizes the problem, using supporting details. Identifies potential underlying causes or conditions contributing to the issue or problem, and considers the context. Potential underlying causes or conditions contributing to the issue or problem are identified and the context is considered. Integrates questions that inform the direction of the investigation of the problem or question into the evaluation. Includes information that is highly relevant to the issue or problem. | 2 points Summarizes the issue or problem with some supporting details. Attempts to identify some potential underlying causes or conditions contributing to the issue or problem; the context is considered but may be lacking in thoroughness. Questions that inform the direction of the investigation of the problem or question are considered, although they may not be fully integrated into the evaluation. Includes information that is somewhat relevant to the issue or problem. | 1 point Attempts to summarize the issue or problem, but the work is weak and there are few, if any, supporting details. Barely touches upon underlying causes or conditions contributing to the issue or problem, and the context is not considered. Partially considers questions that inform the direction of the investigation of the problem or question. Lacks much relevant information. | 0 points Fails to identify the issue or problem is not identified and lacks supporting details. Fails to examine potential underlying causes or conditions contributing to the issue or problem, and context is not considered. Lacks questions that inform the direction of the investigation of the problem, and there is little or no evidence of gathering information. |
| 2.2: Select evidence relevant to a problem or issue. | 4 points Provided details on how machine learning and data analytics applied to the APT assigned could have prevented or reduced the impact of the breach, according to criteria specified and provides supporting details. | 3 points Provided details on how machine learning and data analytics applied to the APT assigned could have prevented or reduced the impact of the breach, but does not provide all the facts. | 2 points Partially completes assignment; however unable to provide all the details. | 1 point Partially completes assignment; however contains significant mistakes. | 0 points No submission. |
| 2.3: Evaluate the influence of context and assumptions on a problem or issue. | 4 points Presents a logical explanation for findings and addresses most of the questions. Uses correct grammar and spelling. | 3 points Presents a logical explanation for findings and addresses some of the questions. Only one or two grammatical or spelling errors. | 2 points Presents an illogical explanation for findings and addresses only a few of the proposed questions. More than two grammatical or spelling errors. | 1 point Presents an illogical explanation for findings and does not address any of the questions. Numerous grammatical and/or spelling errors. | 0 points No submission |
| 2.4: Formulate and support conclusions on a problem or issue. | 4 points Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited sources. Reference list entries and intext citations are correctly formatted using the appropriate IEEE style for each type of resource. The description appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources, i.e. journal articles, industry or trade publications, news articles, industry or government white papers and authoritative Web sites. | 3 points Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited sources. One or two minor errors in IEEE format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries. The description appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources, i.e. journal articles, industry or trade publications, news articles, industry or government white papers and authoritative Web sites. | 2 points Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited sources. No more than 5 minor errors in IEEE format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries. The description appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources, i.e. journal articles, industry or trade Work publications, news articles, industry or government white papers and authoritative Web sites. | 1 point Work contains a reference list containing entries for cited sources. Work contains no more than 5 minor errors in IEEE format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries. The description appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources, i.e. journal articles, industry or trade publications, news articles, industry or government white papers and authoritative Web sites. | 0 points Reference list is missing. Work demonstrates an overall failure to incorporate and/or credit authoritative sources for information used in the paper. The description appropriately used information from 0 or more authoritative sources, i.e. journal articles, industry or trade publications, news articles, industry or government white papers and authoritative Web sites. |
| 2.5: Assess the implications and consequences of particular conclusions. | 4 points Makes excellent use of information sources to increase familiarity on the topic and focus inquiry and seeks out additional information to apply it productively to the topic. Clearly identifies contradictory information or inconsistent data and strives to reconcile contradictions. | 3 points Makes good use of information sources to increase familiarity on the topic and focus inquiry and seeks out additional information to apply it to the problem. Identifies information or inconsistent data and tries to reconcile contradictions. | 2 points Attempts to use information sources to increase familiarity on the topic and tries to focus inquiry. Seeks additional information but leaves gaps in how that information was applied. Fails to fully reconcile contradictory information or inconsistent data. | 1 point Inadequately attempts to use information sources to increase familiarity on the topic and tries to focus inquiry. Includes numerous areas where contradictory information and inconsistent data that is not acknowledged. Includes numerous contradictions. | 0 points Fails to use information sources to increase familiarity on the topic or to focus inquiry. Fails to determine if gaps exist or to seek additional information to address gaps. Leaves contradictory information or inconsistent data may be clearly evident and fails to identify such issues or reconcile contradictions. |
| 13.1.5: Explain the security implications of machine learning. | 4 points Clearly articulates the benefits and limitations of data analytics and machine learning to cybersecurity challenges. Provides an in-depth explanation of how machine learning could have been applied to prevent the advanced persistent threat (APT) or minimize the impact. Successfully analyzes the existing machine learning products that provide cutting-edge tools and techniques, and cybersecurity value to the organization. | 3 points Clearly articulates the benefits and limitations of data analytics and machine learning to cybersecurity challenges. Analyzes how machine learning could have been applied to prevent the advanced persistent threat (APT) or minimize the impact. Provides a description of the existing machine learning products that provide cutting-edge tools and techniques, and cybersecurity value to the organization. | 2 points Evaluates the benefits and limitations of data analytics and machine learning to cybersecurity challenges. Explains how machine learning could have been applied to prevent the advanced persistent threat (APT) or minimize the impact. Provides a limited description of the existing machine learning products that provide cutting-edge tools and techniques, and cybersecurity value to the organization | 1 point Attempts to explain the benefits and limitations of data analytics and machine learning to cybersecurity challenges. Attempts to explain how machine learning could have been applied to prevent the advanced persistent threat (APT) or minimize the impact. Does not provide a limited description of the existing machine learning products that provide cutting-edge tools and techniques, and cybersecurity value to the organization. | 0 points Does not evaluate the benefits and limitations of data analytics and machine learning to cybersecurity challenges. Does not explain how machine learning could have been applied to prevent the advanced persistent threat (APT) or minimize the impact. Does not provide a limited description of the existing machine learning products that provide cutting-edge tools and techniques, and cybersecurity value to the organization |
