Cybersecurity research paper. | Information Systems homework help
[ad_1]
The Sony Hack case study: conduct further research to engage with the nuances of the case and to enforce your reasoning. Address the following points in your analysis:
- Identify the threat Sony faced in the 2014 hack and explain their motives. Explain whether or not you think the aspects of Sony’s sector made it vulnerable to the threat you have identified.
- Offer an explanation of the methods of attack the threat actor employed to breach its cybersecurity and justify your reasoning.
- Describe a scenario of what method of attack at least one other type of threat actor could use in the future, and why.
Your answer should be between 400 and 500 words.
This ongoing project submission will be graded according to the following rubric:
Very poor
Poor
Satisfactory
Very good
Exceptional
Adherence to brief
Student has detailed:
– why or why not the organization’s sector makes it vulnerable.
– the relevant threats to the organization (between two and three for their own organization, and the correct threat and a potential threat for Sony)
– associated methods of cyberattack
Answer falls within the prescribed word count (400-500 words)
No submission, or student fails to address any element of the brief. (0)
Some key elements are not addressed. Most information provided is irrelevant.
OR
Answer does not fall within the prescribed word count (100 words over word count). (5.5)
Student has adhered to most of the brief. Sufficient information is provided and is mostly relevant. (7)
Student has adhered to almost all elements of the brief. Almost all information is provided and is relevant. (8.5)
Student has fully adhered to the brief. All information provided is comprehensive and relevant. (10)
Insight into organization’s sector
Student has justified how (or why not) the threat actors relate to the organization’s sector.
No submission, or student fails to demonstrate even basic understanding of how the threat actors relate (or do not relate) to the organization’s sector. (0)
Student shows an incomplete understanding of how the threat actors relate (or do not relate) to the organization’s sector. (5.5)
Student has adequately explained how (or why not) the threat actors relate to the organization’s sector. However, at least one aspect is either not completely correct or complete.
Student has clearly justified how (or why not) the threat actors relate to the organization’s sector. (8.5)
Student has comprehensively and insightfully justified how (or why not) the threat actors relate to the organization’s sector. (10)
Insight into threat actors
Student has demonstrated their understanding by providing substantial justification of the two to three threat actors they have identified.
In the case of Sony, student has demonstrated their understanding by providing substantial justification of the threat actor they identified in the 2014 hack, as well as one other potential threat actor.
No submission, or student fails to demonstrate even basic understanding of threats to the organization. (0)
Student shows an incomplete understanding of threats to the organization. Their justification of threat actors is incomplete, or lacks logic or accuracy. (5.5)
Student demonstrates a satisfactory understanding of threats to the organization. Their justification of threat actors is adequate in its logic and accuracy. However, at least one aspect is either not completely correct or complete. (7)
Student demonstrates a strong understanding of threats to the organization. Their justification of threat actors is sound in its logic and accuracy. (8.5)
Student demonstrates a masterful understanding of threats to the organization. Their justification of threat actors is accurate, convincing, and insightful. (10)
Insight into methods of attack
Student has demonstrated their understanding by accurately describing their identified threat actors’ associated methods of cyberattack.
In the case of Sony, student has demonstrated their understanding by describing a justification of the threat actor’s methods of attack in the 2014 hack, as well as the methods of one other potential threat actor.
No submission, or student fails to demonstrate even basic understanding of methods of attack. (0)
Student shows an incomplete understanding of their identified threat actors’ methods of attack. Their justification of their methods of attack is incomplete, or lacks logic or accuracy. (5.5)
Student demonstrates a satisfactory understanding of their identified threat actors’ methods of attack. Their justification of their methods of attack is adequate in its logic and accuracy. However, at least one aspect is either not completely correct or complete. (7)
Student demonstrates a strong understanding of their identified threat actors’ methods of attack. Their justification of their methods of attack is sound in its logic and accuracy. (8.5)
Student demonstrates a masterful understanding of their identified threat actors’ methods of attack. Their justification of threat actors is accurate, convincing, and insightful. (10)
Organization of writing
Answer should be structured clearly and logically.
No submission, or complete lack of logical structure. (0)
Answer has some logical structure, but not enough to justify a passing grade. (5.5)
Answer is structured fairly well in terms of logic and clarity. (7)
Answer is structured very well in terms of logic and clarity. (8.5)
Answer is structured exceptionally well in terms of logic and clarity. (10)
Total: 50 points
