The assessment task aim is to develop a Cybersecurity Roadmap/Plan for Board members targeted for a specific company. Instructions 1. Download and Read the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastruct

STUCK with your assignment? When is it due? Hire our professional essay experts who are available online 24/7 for an essay paper written to a high standard at a reasonable price.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

The assessment task aim is to develop a Cybersecurity Roadmap/Plan for Board members targeted for a specific company.

Instructions

1. Download and Read the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity Version 1.1 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

2. Find a recent (2019/2020) case study relating to a data breach . Investigate the breach (including finding other sources) and explain why you selected the case study, who was responsible for the breach, the consequences and actions taken.

3. Develop a cybersecurity roadmap/plan for the case study organisation you selected to present to the Board. Use the relevant components of the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity Version 1.1 National Institute of Standards and Technology to structure your report (justify your selection of components).

4. Using the roadmap/plan critically evaluate how your case study organisation could have avoided the breach.

Report Requirements

1. Write a report that addresses the areas outlined above. The report should not exceed 3,000 words (between 6 and 8 pages depending on the Font style selected). The word count excludes the reference list, title page, table of contents and appendices – if applicable. The report should be in 12-point font, single-spaced in word processing software such as Microsoft Word. The report should have appropriate headings and subheadings (including a cover page, an introduction and conclusion).

2. This report must use scholarly articles to support any claims you make. You must use the Harvard referencing style

3. Review the marking rubric so that you understand how you will receive feedback.

The assessment task aim is to develop a Cybersecurity Roadmap/Plan for Board members targeted for a specific company. Instructions 1. Download and Read the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastruct
1 | P a ge ACCG 8086 Cyber security, Governance Frameworks and Ethics Strategy Cyber security Roadmap/Plan for the Board Due Week 6 (Sunday 04 April 20 21) Value: 30 per cent of final marks Final 1.0 February 2021 The assessment task aim is to develop a Cyber security Roadmap/Plan for Board members targeted for a specific company. Instructions 1. Download and Read the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity Version 1.1 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (available here: https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework/framework ). The Framework is designed to be a key part of an organisation’s systematic process for identifying, assessing, and managing cybersecurity risk . 2. Find a recent (2019/2020) case study relating to a data breach (this website might be useful: https://www.datab reachtoday.com/cybercrime -c- 416 ). Investigate the breach (including finding other sources) and explain why you selected the case study, who was responsible for the breach, the consequences and actions taken. 3. Develop a cybersecurity roadmap/plan for the case study organisation you selected to present to the Board . Use the relevant components of the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity Version 1.1 National Institute of Standards and Technology to structure yo ur report (justify your selection of components) . 4. Using the roadmap/plan critically evaluate how your case study organisation could have avoided the breach . Report Requirements 1. W rite a report that add resses the area s out lined abov e. The repo rt shou ld n ot exceed 3,000 words ( between 6 and 8 pages depending on the Font style selected ). Th e word count excludes the reference list, title page, table of contents and appendices – if applicable . The report should be in 12 -point font, sin gle-sp ace d in wo rd p rocessing so ftware su ch as Mi croso ft W ord. The repo rt shou ld have appropriate hea dings and subh ea dings (includi ng a cover page, an i ntrodu ction and conclus ion ). 2. This repo rt must use scho larly articles to suppo rt any claims you make. You must use the Harvard referencing style (see http://libguides.mq.edu.au/Referencing ). 3. Take advantage of the resources available to you. Learning skills workshops https://students.mq.edu.au/support/study/skills – development/workshop -calendar are highly recommended. Othe r resources are available here: https://students.mq.edu.au/support/study/skills – development . 4. Review the marking rub ric so t hat you un derstand how you will rece ive feedback. 5. You n eed to uplo ad your assi gnment to http: //ilear n.mq .edu. au by 23 :00 26 th April . O therwise , you r assi gnment will be con sidered l ate (see un it guide for penalti es). Please note: you must upload a Word document. If you u pload a pdf document it will not be marked . 2 | P a ge ACCG 8086 Cyber security, Governance Frameworks and Ethics Strategy Cyber security Roadmap/Plan for the Board Due Week 6 (Sunday 04 April 20 21) Value: 30 per cent of final marks Final 1.0 February 2021 Fail (0) Fail Pass Credit Distin ction High Distin ction Tot al Stru cture and clarity of work/ writing stru cture (including spelling/grammar/ paragraph structure) No attemp t, or The report is difficult to comprehend and is inappropriately structured. Paragraphs are hard to follow, and the writing does not flow because of the lack of structure. Writing is very choppy. There are few to no transition statements which connect the ideas in work. Work is difficult to comprehend because of grammar and spelling errors or there are many incomplete or run – on sentences. It appears that grammar and spell -check were not used . Many paragraphs lack a topic sentence, or the detail sentences do not flow from the topic sentence. Detail sentences do not follow the order introduced in the topic sentence. Work is hard to follow because of the paragraph structure. The writing is choppy , and the reader doesn’t understand how we got to the current topic or concept from the previous one. There are m any errors in grammar and spelling. It appears that grammar and spell – check were not used — incomplete or run -on sentences throughout the report. Nearly all paragraphs have a topic sentence and detail sentences which flesh out the topic. Some paragraphs do not flesh out the topic in the order introduced in the topic sentence. There are some places where the reader doesn’t understand how the previous concept or topic connects to the current one . Few errors in grammar, spelling, or sentence structure All pa ragraphs have a topic sentence. Detail sentences flesh out the information from the topic sentence in the order introduced in the topic sentence. End of paragraph leads into the next topic. There are some places where the reader doesn’t understand how the previous concept or topic connects to the current one. Excellence in grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. Sentences are not too long and are complete sentences. All paragraphs have a topic sentence. Detail sentences flesh out the information from the topic sentence in the order introduced in the topic sentence. End of paragraph leads into the next topic. The reader experiences no interruption to the flow and understands how each concept or topic connects to the previous one — excellence in grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. Sentences are not too long and are complete sentences. /4 Case Study No attemp t, or The case is inappropriate , or there is no analyse or link to cybersecurity The c ase is irrelevant , with little or no analysis of the issues in the case study. The case selected is slightly relevant. Presents a superficial or incomplete analysis of some of the identified issues; omits some components. The case selected is relevant. Presents a good analysis of most of the issues identified; missing some necessary components. The case selected is relevant . Presents a thorough analysis of all identified issues/problems; includes all ne cessary components. The case selected is relevant . Presents an insightful and thorough analysis of all identified issues/problems; includes all necessary components. /6 3 | P a ge ACCG 8086 Cyber security, Governance Frameworks and Ethics Strategy Cyber security Roadmap/Plan for the Board Due Week 6 (Sunday 04 April 20 21) Value: 30 per cent of final marks Final 1.0 February 2021 Sources and Citations No attemp t, or The sources are cited inconsistently or not at all. The Harvard referencing style is not used. Fewer than five current sources or fewer than two of five are peer – reviewed journal articles or scholarly books. Not all web sites utilised are credible, and/or sources are not current. Does not cite data obtained from other sources or use the Harvard citation style in text or in the reference list. More than f ive current sources of which at least two are peer review journal articles or scholarly books. All web sites utilised are authoritative. All data obtained from other sources is cited . Harvard citation style is used in both intext and reference list. More than six current sources, of which at least three are peer -review journal articles or scholarly books. All web sites utilised are authoritative. Cites all data obtained from other sources. Harvard citation style is used in both intext and reference list . More than eight current sources, of which at least four are peer -review journal articles or scholarly books. All web sites utilised are authoritative. Cites all data obtained from other sources. Harvard citation style is used in both intext and reference list . More than ten current sources, of which at least six are peer review journal articles or scholarly books. Sources include both general backgroun d sources and specialised sources. Special interest sources and popular literature are acknowledged as such if they are cited. All web sites utilised are authoritative. Cites all data obtained from other sources. Harvard citation style is used in both text and reference list /4 Strategic Security Roadmap No attemp t, or The roadmap/plan shows no evidence of synthesis of ideas presented and insights gained throughout the report or linked to the NIST framework . The roadmap/plan do es not clearly flow from the report, and/or mis ses key issues. The roadmap is not well organised and is not presented in a clear format relating to the NIST framework . The roadmap/plan shows little evidence of synthesis of ideas presented and insights gained from the report . Some conclusions flow from the report but miss key issues. The format is unclear and partially aligns with the NIST framework . The roadmap/plan shows some evidence of synthesis of ideas presented and insights gained throughout the report. The roadmap/plan logically flow s from the report, but the logic may not always be clear. They are presented in a clear format and aligns with the components of the NIST framework . The roadmap/plan shows good evidence of synthesis of ideas presented and insights gained throughout the report. Conclusions logically flow from the report . They are presented in a clear format that align with justified components of the NIST framework. The roadmap/plan shows strong evidence of synthesis of ideas presented and insights gained throughout the report. Conclusions logically flow from the report fully developed. Conclusions are presented in a clear format aligned with appropriately justified NIST framework components . /10 4 | P a ge ACCG 8086 Cyber security, Governance Frameworks and Ethics Strategy Cyber security Roadmap/Plan for the Board Due Week 6 (Sunday 04 April 20 21) Value: 30 per cent of final marks Final 1.0 February 2021 Critically evaluate Case Study No attemp t, or The evaluation shows a lack of understanding of cyber security concepts. Copies information without analysis of risks. The evaluation does not demonstrate that the author has fully understood and applied cyber security concepts. The position taken may be simplistic and obvious. Little or no awareness that position may have lim its or context. The a nalysis is limited, somewhat inappropriate or little analysis of risks. May contain inaccuracies or omissions that interfere with analysis and/or meaning. The evaluation demonstrates that the author understands cyber security concept s. The evaluation is somewhat simplified , with some sense of multiple approaches. Minor or vague synthesis of perspectives. Some acknowledgement that the position taken may have limits. May not acknowledge context. The information is analysed for accuracy, relevance and validity relating to risks. Minor inaccuracies or omissions may interfere with analysis or meaning. The evaluation demonstrates that the author has applied cyber security concepts. The author acknowl edges multiple approaches. Some synthesis of perspectives. May not fully acknowledge limits of position or context, but is aware of limits or context. The information is analysed for accuracy, relevance and validity relating to risks. Minor inaccuracies or omissions do not interfere with analysis or meaning. The evaluation demonstrates that the author has synthesized limited cyber security concepts. The author acknowledges multiple approaches. The author may not fully acknowledge limits of position or context, but is aware of limits or context. Clearly analyses information for accuracy, relevance, and validity relating to risks. Information clearly relates to meaning. The evaluation demonstrates that the author has synthesized various cyber security concepts. The author clearly applies a multidimensional approach by synthesizing various perspectives. Acknowledges limits of position or context. /6 Tot al Poi nts: /30

Writerbay.net

Everyone needs a little help with academic work from time to time. Hire the best essay writing professionals working for us today!

Get a 15% discount for your first order


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper