Assessment Description Security professionals need to understand that compliance, along with strong security policies, can make organizational security stronger, but not completely hacker-proof. In 50

Assessment Description

Security professionals need to understand that compliance, along with strong security policies, can make organizational security stronger, but not completely hacker-proof.

In 500-750 words, explain how compliance with governing standards can fail to provide security even when using the Diamond Model of Intrusion Analysis or Cyber Kill Chain model. Where does the use of the model's tools (e.g., relating to HIPAA, DOD, etc.) still make an organization vulnerable even though the organization is compliant with industry regulations and standards?

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.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Benchmark Information  

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies: 

MS Cybersecurity

MS Information Assurance and Cybersecurity

3.2: Analyze various cyber threat models used to identify and protect against cybercrime threat vectors, motivations, and ideologies.

Much USe this Matrix

Benchmark – Attack Vectors Models - RubricCollapse AllGoverning Standards Compliance (B)70 pointsCriteria Description

Governing Standards Compliance (C3.2)

5. Target70 points

The student thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates cyber threat models (tools) effectiveness to provide security while being compliant with industry regulations and standards. The student draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions. The student not only formulates a clear example, but also acknowledges objections and rival positions.

4. Acceptable59.5 points

The student clearly assesses cyber threat models (tools) effectiveness to provide security while being compliant with industry regulations and standards. Analysis is direct, competent, and appropriate of the criteria. The student presents supporting evidence.

3. Approaching52.5 points

A surface-level explanation of the cyber threat models (tools) effectiveness to provide security while being compliant with industry regulations and standards is offered. The student presents several supporting details.

2. Insufficient45.5 points

The student ignores or superficially explains the cyber threat models (tools) effectiveness to provide security while being compliant with industry regulations and standards. The student draws unwarranted or fallacious conclusions, and presents minimal supporting details.

1. Unsatisfactory0 points

Analysis of the cyber threat models (tools) effectiveness to provide security while being compliant with industry regulations and standards is not outlined or outlined poorly. The student fails to present supporting details.

Format/Documentation10 pointsCriteria Description

Format/Documentation Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., appropriate to assignment and discipline.

5. Target10 points

No errors in formatting or documentation are present. Selectivity in the use of direct quotations and synthesis of sources is demonstrated.

4. Acceptable8.5 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.

3. Approaching7.5 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors.

2. Insufficient6.5 points

Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident.

1. Unsatisfactory0 points

Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.

Argument Logic and Construction10 pointsCriteria Description

Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner.

5. Target10 points

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

4. Acceptable8.5 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. Approaching7.5 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. Insufficient6.5 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 Awareness5 pointsCriteria Description

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

5. Target5 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. Acceptable4.25 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. Approaching3.75 points

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

2. Insufficient3.25 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 Writing5 pointsCriteria Description

Mechanics of Writing Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.

5. Target5 points

No mechanical errors are present. Skilled control of language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.

4. Acceptable4.25 points

Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used.

3. Approaching3.75 points

Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.

2. Insufficient3.25 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.

1. Unsatisfactory0 points

Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.