Assessment Description Cybersecurity professionals need to know the differences in the tools used to automate network defense and cybersecurity attacks by hackers in order to properly form strategic d

Assessment Description

Cybersecurity professionals need to know the differences in the tools used to automate network defense and cybersecurity attacks by hackers in order to properly form strategic defense parameters that can resist network threats.

In 500-700 words, explain defensive scripting and how it works.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

Programmed Security - RubricCollapse AllDefensive Scripting35 pointsCriteria Description

Defensive Scripting

5. Excellent35 points

The student comprehensively explain defensive scripting and how it works with extensive details and examples. Subject knowledge is excellent.

4. Good29.75 points

The student provides a detailed description of explain defensive scripting and how it works with supporting details and examples. Subject knowledge is good.

3. Satisfactory26.25 points

The student appropriately describes explain defensive scripting and how it works with some supporting details and examples. Subject knowledge appears to be good.

2. Less than Satisfactory22.75 points

The student outlines explain defensive scripting and how it works with few supporting details and examples. Some subject knowledge is evident.

1. Unsatisfactory0 points

The student provides an incomplete description of explain defensive scripting and how it works. Subject knowledge is not evident.

Sources5 pointsCriteria Description

Sources

5. Excellent5 points

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.

4. Good4.25 points

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.

3. Satisfactory3.75 points

Sources are adequate, relevant, and extend beyond assigned readings. Quoted material and paraphrasing are included to support major points and writer's idea development.

2. Less than Satisfactory3.25 points

Few relevant sources beyond assigned readings are used to support major points. Important relevant sources are neglected. Quoted material and paraphrasing are overused.

1. Unsatisfactory0 points

No outside academic sources are used to support major points.

Argument Logic and Construction5 pointsCriteria Description

Argument Logic and Construction

5. Excellent5 points

Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

4. Good4.25 points

Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

3. Satisfactory3.75 points

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.

2. Less than Satisfactory3.25 points

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

1. Unsatisfactory0 points

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.)2.5 pointsCriteria Description

Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.)

5. Excellent2.5 points

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.

4. Good2.13 points

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.

3. Satisfactory1.88 points

Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part.

2. Less than Satisfactory1.63 points

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.

1. Unsatisfactory0 points

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.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)2.5 pointsCriteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)

5. Excellent2.5 points

The writer is clearly in command of standard, written academic English.

4. Good2.13 points

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.

3. Satisfactory1.88 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Audience-appropriate language is employed.

2. Less than Satisfactory1.63 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present.

1. Unsatisfactory0 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are employed.