DATABASE ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN

 

IT 8100 DATABASE ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN

“Contract-Supplier System”

ERD Conceptual Model

Group Activity 2 “Contract-Supplier System”

3

• A company negotiates contracts with suppliers to provide certain amount of items at a fixed price

 • Orders are placed against any of the already  negotiated contracts 

• A contract could provide items to any number of  orders.

 • An order may include any number of items negotiated in the contract

 • Orders should not exceed the maximum amount of items quoted in the contract 

• All items in an order must be provided as part of a single contract and a single project ERD Conceptual Model

Group Activity 2 “Contract-Supplier System”

Create the Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD) Conceptual Design 

Read More

Final Project Guidelines and Rubric

 

IT 412: Final Project Guidelines and Rubric 

Overview There are two components to the final project for this course. The first component is a risk analysis paper. The second component is a risk mitigation plan presentation to stakeholders that illustrates an organization’s regulatory position related to a given scenario. This project is divided into two milestones, which will be submitted at various points throughout the course to scaffold learning and ensure quality final submissions. These milestones will be submitted in Modules Three and Five. The final product will be submitted in Module Seven. 

 

In this assignment, you will demonstrate your mastery of the following course outcomes: 

 

 Evaluate federal, regional, and state cyberlaws and ethics regulations for their impact on organizations’ IT and computing policies and operations  Assess personal and professional ethical violations for the extent to which they impact IT and computing within organizations  Recommend policies and strategies that align with cyberlaw and ethics guidelines for facilitating compliance and addressing non-adherence  Utilize cyberlaw and ethics guidelines in creating IT-specific codes of ethics for mitigating stakeholder and organizational risk 

 

Scenario ABC Healthcare is a startup company with 50 employees. The company’s computer network is shown in Figure 1 below. The healthcare data server contains the company's records, including copies of patient health records with personally identifiable data, patient billing, company financials, and forms. 

 

You have been hired as the IT network security officer, reporting directly to the chief information officer (CIO). Currently, there is a network administrator who has very limited experience and worked as a desktop technician prior to joining ABC. This network administrator helped set up the existing network. In addition, ABC plans to hire a desktop technician and a website developer/programmer who will report directly to the CIO. 

 

There are no policies or guidelines for employees’ usage of the computers and network. Network setup was done by various vendors, and all of the programs use default usernames and passwords. Wireless access has been set up for staff using wireless laptops. The same wireless access point also provides clients access to the internet. Some staff members bring in their own computers and connect them to the network. Employees use the work systems for personal web browsing and to check personal email accounts. 

 

As part of network security, management set up a video monitoring system throughout the office. Employees are not notified of any monitoring. 

There is a copier/printer in the front office that is used by employees. Currently, all unused copies are left next to the copier for recycling. 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 

 

The administration office room uses an open cubicle structure for its staff. Figure 2 depicts the cubicles and seating of its sta f. Staff members sometimes complain that they can hear each other during the work day. 

 

 

 

Figure 2 

 

 

Prompt Create a comprehensive risk analysis narrative in which you assess ABC Healthcare’s information systems for ethics violations and cyberlaw compliance, and research the framework for creating an acceptable use-of-technology policy and code of ethics. 

 

Next, using PowerPoint, Google Presentation, or Prezi, create a presentation in which you recommend appropriate strategies for remediating the instances of ethics violations and cyberlaw noncompliance you identified in your risk analysis. Propose an organizational code of ethics related to information technology that prevents future violations and noncompliance, and propose an acceptable use-of-technology policy that addresses non-adherence. 

 

 

Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed: 

 

I. Risk Analysis Paper 1. Describe the information technology structure of the organization in the given scenario. 2. Identify specific cyberlaws and ethics regulations that pertain to the organization and its computing operations in the scenario. 3. Organizational ethics violations i. Classify unethical behaviors with respect to whether they are personal or professional in nature, being sure to support your position with specific examples. ii. Assess the impact of the unethical behaviors on IT and computing within the organization. 4. Cyberlaw noncompliance i. Identify instances of cyberlaw noncompliance, being sure to cite the specific regulation(s) being violated. ii. Assess the impact of the noncompliance on IT and computing within the organization. 5. Acceptable use-of-technology policies research i. Compare and contrast acceptable use-of-technology policies from various organizations. You can find suggested organizations below or use policies of your own choosing. ii. Select aspects of the acceptable use-of-technology policies you have researched that you feel could be adapted to meet the needs of the organization, and explain how you would adapt them. 6. Codes of ethics research i. Compare and contrast IT-specific codes of ethics from various organizations. You can find suggested organizations below or use codes of ethics of your own choosing. ii. Select aspects of the codes of ethics you have researched that you feel could be adapted to meet the needs of the organization, and explain how you would adapt them. 

 

IT Acceptable Use Policies 

 

There are many areas within the field of IT, and each area’s policies may vary based on specialization. IT does not have one rule-making body as other professions do. IT does, however, have many professional organizations that represent different specializations, such as security, operations management, and computing technology. 

 

SANS Institute Acceptable Use Policy ISSA Acceptable Use Policy Pennsylvania College of Technology IT Acceptable Use Policy AT&T Acceptable Use Policy 

 

 

IT Codes of Ethics 

 

Professional organizations provide codes of ethics that may vary slightly, depending on specialization. A code of ethics may also be provided by a business or educational organization. 

 

SANS Institute IT Code of Ethics ISSA Code of Ethics  K-State Information Technology Employee Code of Ethics 

 

Business Codes of Ethics 

 

AT&T Code of Ethics Microsoft Standards of Business Conduct 

 

 

II. Risk Mitigation Plan Presentation: Based on your research, you will create a multimedia presentation (suggested length of 5–10 slides) using a tool of your choice (for example, PowerPoint, Google Presentation, or Prezi). Your audience for this presentation is the organization’s management. This presentation will provide a brief overview of the issues you identified in your risk analysis and present your recommendations for addressing the problems identified in your analysis. The presentation must include the following elements: 

 

o Provide an overview of the issues you identified in your risk analysis. In other words, what were the unethical behaviors and instances of cyberlaw noncompliance? o Propose appropriate strategies that remediate the identified ethics violations and cyberlaw noncompliance. What can the organization do now to address the issues you have identified? o Recommend, based on your research, a brief list of appropriate policy statements that address acceptable use in facilitating future compliance and addressing non-adherence. In other words, how can the organization prevent the same or similar problem(s) in the future? o Recommend, based on your research, a brief IT-specific code of ethics that mitigates the risk of future instances of violation and noncompliance. In other words, how can the organization prevent the same or similar problem(s) in the future? 

 

Guidelines for Presentation: Your final presentation can be submitted in PowerPoint, Google Presentation, or Prezi format. 

 

 You can find various template designs on the internet for your presentation. Prior to selecting a specific style, consider your presentation from the perspective of your audience. Avoid distractions. Be consistent with the style of text, bullets, and sub-points to support a powerful presentation that allows your content to be the focus. 

 

 

 Each slide should include your key point(s). Do not place large blocks of text on the visuals. Add more extensive information in the presenter notes section.  Use clip art, AutoShapes, pictures, charts, tables, and diagrams to enhance, but not overwhelm, your content.  Be mindful of your intended audience. 

 

Below are links that offer helpful tips and examples for developing your presentation: 

 

 Making PowerPoint Slides  Beyond Bullet Points: The Better Way to Use PowerPoint  Really Bad PowerPoint and How to Avoid It 

 

 

 

Milestone One: Draft of Risk Analysis Paper, Sections 1–3 

Milestones 

In Module Three, you will submit a draft of Section 1: Information Technology Structure, Section 2: Cyberlaws and Ethic Regulations, and Section 3: Ethics Violations. This milestone will be graded using the Milestone One Rubric. 

 

Milestone Two: Draft of Risk Analysis Paper, Sections 4–5 In Module Five, you will submit a draft of Section 4: Cyberlaw Noncompliance and Section 5: Acceptable Use Policies of the risk analysis paper. This milestone will be graded using the Milestone Two Rubric. 

 

Final Submission: Risk Analysis Paper and Risk Mitigation Plan Presentation In Module Seven, you will submit the final risk analysis paper and the risk mitigation plan presentation. These should be complete, polished artifacts containing  all of the critical elements of the final product. They should reflect the incorporation of feedback gained throughout the course. This submission will be graded using the Final Project Rubric. 

 

 

Final Project Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Written components of this project must follow these formatting guidelines: double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one- inch margins, and discipline-appropriate citations. The risk analysis paper should be 10–15 pages in length, and the risk mitigation presentation should have 5–10 slides. 

 

 

Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (85%) Needs Improvement (55%) Not Evident (0%) Value Paper: Information Technology Structure Meets “Proficient” criteria and uses industry-specific language to establish expertise Comprehensively describes the information technology structure of the organization in the scenario Describes the information technology structure of the organization in the scenario, but description is inaccurate or lacks detail Does not describe the information technology structure of the organization in the scenario 5 Paper: Cyberlaws and Ethics Regulations Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides specific examples from similar organizations encountered during research Identifies specific cyberlaws and ethics regulations that pertain to the organization and its computing operations Identifies specific cyberlaws and ethics regulations but does not connect them to the organization and its computing operations Does not identify specific cyberlaws and ethics regulations 7 Paper: Ethics Violations: Personal or Professional Meets “Proficient” criteria, and examination includes harm caused by unethical behaviors Accurately classifies unethical behaviors as personal or professional in nature and supports position with specific examples Classifies unethical behaviors inaccurately, or does not support position with specific examples Does not classify unethical behaviors as personal or professional in nature 7 Paper: Ethics Violations: Impact Meets “Proficient” criteria and expands on the impact beyond immediate internal stakeholders Assesses the impact of unethical behaviors on IT and computing within the organization Assesses the impact of unethical behaviors but does not connect them to the organization, or discussion lacks detail Does not assess the impact of unethical behaviors on IT and computing within the organization 7 Paper: Cyberlaw Noncompliance: Regulation(s) Meets “Proficient” criteria, and examination includes harm caused by noncompliance Accurately identifies instances of cyberlaw noncompliance and cites specific regulation(s) being violated Identifies instances of cyberlaw noncompliance inaccurately, or does not cite specific regulation(s) being violated Does not identify instances of cyberlaw noncompliance 7 

Paper: Cyberlaw Noncompliance: Impact 

Meets “Proficient” criteria and expands on the impact beyond immediate internal stakeholders 

Assesses the impact of cyberlaw noncompliance on IT and computing within the organization 

Assesses the impact of cyberlaw noncompliance but does not connect it to the organization, or discussion lacks detail 

Does not assess the impact of cyberlaw noncompliance on IT and computing within the organization 

7 

 

 

Paper: Acceptable Use Policies: Comparing and Contrasting 

Meets “Proficient” criteria, and examples are drawn from a broad range of resources 

Comprehensively compares and contrasts acceptable use-of- technology policies 

Compares and contrasts acceptable use-of-technology policies, but discussion lacks detail or is inaccurate 

Does not compare and contrast acceptable use-of-technology policies 

7 

Paper: Acceptable Use Policies: Adaptation 

Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides detailed examples of how the adaptation will support the organization 

Selects aspects of the policies that could be adapted to meet the needs of the organization and explains how they would be adapted 

Selects aspects of the policies that could be adapted to meet the needs of the organization, but does not explain how they would be adapted 

Does not select aspects of the policies that could be adapted to meet the needs of the organization 

7 

Paper: Codes of Ethics: Comparing and Contrasting 

Meets “Proficient” criteria, and examples are drawn from a broad range of resources 

Comprehensively compares and contrasts IT-specific codes of ethics 

Compares and contrasts codes of ethics, but codes are not IT- specific, or discussion lacks detail or is inaccurate 

Does not compare and contrast IT-specific codes of ethics 

7 

Paper: Codes of Ethics: Adaptation 

Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides detailed examples of how the adaptations will support the organization 

Selects aspects of codes of ethics that could be adapted to meet the needs of the organization and explains how they could be adapted 

Selects aspects of codes of ethics that could be adapted to meet the needs of the organization, but does not explain how they would be adapted, or explanation is not accurate 

Does not select aspects of the codes of ethics that could be adapted to meet the needs of the organization 

7 

Presentation: Overview 

Meets “Proficient” criteria and uses industry-specific language to establish expertise 

Provides a comprehensive overview of the issues identified in the risk analysis 

Provides an overview of the issues identified in the risk analysis, but the overview lacks detail 

Does not provide an overview of the issues identified in the risk analysis 

6 

Presentation: Strategies 

Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides detailed examples of how the proposed strategies will remediate the identified issues 

Proposes appropriate strategies that remediate the identified ethics violations and cyberlaw noncompliance 

Proposes strategies that remediate the identified ethics violations or cyberlaw noncompliance, but not both, or the proposed strategies are inappropriate 

Does not propose appropriate strategies that remediate the identified ethics violations and cyberlaw noncompliance 

7 

Presentation: Policy Statements 

Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides detailed examples of how the proposed policy statements will facilitate noncompliance and address non- adherence 

Recommends appropriate policy statements that address acceptable use in facilitating compliance and addressing non- adherence 

Recommends policy statements that address acceptable use in facilitating compliance or addressing non-adherence, but not both, or recommended policy statements are inappropriate 

Does not recommend policy statements that address acceptable use in facilitating compliance and addressing non- adherence 

7 

 

 

Presentation: Code of Ethics 

Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides detailed examples of how the proposed code of ethics will mitigate the risk from the identified issues 

Recommends appropriate code of ethics that mitigates the risk of future instances of violation and noncompliance 

Recommends code of ethics that mitigates risk of future instances of violation or noncompliance, but not both, or the recommended code of ethics is inappropriate 

Does not recommend code of ethics that mitigates risk of future instances of violation and noncompliance 

7 

Articulation of Response 

Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read format 

Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization 

Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas 

Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas 

5 

Earned Total 100% 

 

Read More

Case Study Analysis Guidelines and Rubric

  

IT 380 Module Three Case Study Analysis Guidelines and Rubric

Overview: This case study analysis will help you analyze a cybersecurity scenario and identify which principles were violated. Each skill in this paper is an essential part of the final project and accompanying milestones in this course.

Prompt: Use the articles from the Module Three required resources to analyze the cyber security occurrence, determine which principles were violated, and recommend appropriate policies to prevent recurrence.

Scenario: In February 2015, as many as 80 million customers of the nation’s second‐largest health insurance company, Anthem Inc., had their account information stolen. This compromise affected customers in at least 14 different states where Anthem provided services.

The hackers gained access to Anthem’s computer system and got information including names, birthdays, medical IDs, Social Security numbers, street addresses, email addresses, and employment information including income data. Both current and former customers were exposed during this breach.

So, while this was an attack against a medical provider and it resulted in a massive data breach, regulatory requirements were not sufficient to help prevent this breach. Because no actual medical information appears to have been stolen, the breach would not come under Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) rules, which govern the confidentiality and security of medical information.

Based on the Test Out sections from this module and the additional module resources you have reviewed, your paper should address the following critical elements:

 Identification of cyber security principles that were violated and rationale of cause

 Analysis of cryptography that would have helped prevent this breach

 Recommendation of additional policies that would have been useful to mitigate the breach or even prevent the breach

Rubric

Guidelines for Submission: Your paper should be submitted as a 2‐ to 3‐page (in addition to the cover and reference pages) Microsoft Word document with double spacing, 12‐point Times New Roman font, and one‐inch margins. All sources must be cited in APA format.

Critical Elements

Exemplary (100%)

Proficient (90%)

Needs Improvement (70%)

Not Evident (0%)

Value

Identification of Cybersecurity Principles That Were Violated

Meets “Proficient” criteria and correctly identifies which principles were violated with empirical supporting examples

Correctly identifies which principles were violated with supporting examples

Identifies which principles were violated but supporting examples have gaps

Does not identify a single principle

30

Analysis of Cryptography and Prevention

Meets “Proficient” criteria and analysis demonstrates keen insight of cryptography and prevention methods

Analysis demonstrates accurate knowledge of cryptography and prevention methods

Analysis demonstrates knowledge of cryptography but needs additional information to support prevention ideas

Does not analyze the cryptography and prevention methods

30

Policy Recommendation

Meets “Proficient” criteria and recommendation demonstrates understanding of policies that would remedy the situation appropriately

Recommends policies to ensure proper resolution of scenario

Recommends a single policy to remedy situation but recommendation has gaps in strategic implementation

Does not recommend any policies

30

Proper Use of Writing, Mechanics, and Grammar

Paper is free of errors in organization and grammar with applicable sources cited

Paper is mostly free of errors of organization and grammar; errors are marginal and rarely interrupt the flow; cites applicable sources

Paper contains errors of organization and grammar but errors are limited enough so that assignments can be understood; cites applicable sources

Paper contains errors of organization and grammar making the content difficult to understand

10

Total

100%

Read More

Ethical Case Study

 

Ethical Case Study Project Guidelines

Overview

You write a case study based on your own experience related to an ethical issue within an organization; or you may choose to write about an emerging ethical issue within your current or planned industry. The case study can be fully anonymous to protect those within your organization, and you may choose to identify your role in the case study or not. Your case study will be submitted for a grade in parts throughout the term with the entire final document as the last deliverable. Please review these general tips and guidelines. How to approach writing your case:

• Assume you are one of the leaders in the organization. Write with clarity and confidence on the topic based on what you have learned prior to and during this course.

• Pretend that the audience reading this case study knows nothing about the situation or ethical philosophy, decision-making, etc. Provide enough detail to give readers enough information to draw conclusions, but remain succinct.

• Explain, as needed, the context, evaluate the evidence, and make a decision concerning the appropriate course of action, and support your conclusion through arguments and counter-arguments.

• Take a clear and decisive position – What would you do in this case? What ethical decision-making framework did you use? What most influenced your decision?

Formatting Requirements

The formatting of this document should be as follows:

• Use consistent formatting throughout (12 pt font, Times New Roman, single-spaced).

• Do review your paper thoroughly for grammatical issues and typographical errors!

• Use cover page and references

• Cite your sources (do not use Wikipedia or Blog, etc.) and list them in a reference page per APA style.

• At minimum 5 resources that are published no more than five years ago. Choose scholarly resources (i.e., peer-reviewed journal, sources from your industry/organization, and (sparingly) the textbook.

• 9-12 body pages (single-spaced, not including cover page and references).

Project Timeline

• Week 3: Choose an ethical issue and a topic. See the assignment for details.

• Week 4: Part 1 and Outline of Case

• Week 5: Part 2

• Week 6: Part 3

• Week 7: Final Document

• Week 8: Final Presentation

Ethical Case Outline

Part 1: Describe the case (3-4 pages):

• Identify the parties involved, their rights, their responsibilities

• Identify the salient ethical and/or legal issues of the case

• Identify the relevant factual issues, conceptual issues, social constraints, and any additional information necessary for an accurate understanding of the case.

• If needed, conduct research about the issue from multiple perspectives and include relevant ethical theory, legal requirements, and technical details about the case to ensure that the case can be solved.

• See OWL Sample Outlines for formatting information.

Part 2: Critically analyze the case (3-4 pages):

• Identify the primary “ethical dilemma (or question)” in the case.

• Formulate possible courses of action.

• Discuss any role that information technology or context played in creating the special circumstances of the case.

• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of those actions.

• Analyze different courses of action, are they based on a consequential or non-consequential approach? Are these courses of action ethical?

• Weigh the pros and cons of each action.

Part 3: Solve the case (3-4 pages):

• Indicate which course of action you would choose, and why. If you were personally involved in the scenario, you can detail what you DID do compared to what you WOULD do given what you have learned in this course.

• Provide your own opinions: do not rephrase the opinions of others, create your own, unique viewpoint based on your ethical philosophy, ethical decision-making framework, and the context and scenario of the case.

• Clearly demonstrate and explain how the pros of your solution outweigh the cons.

• Use the facts of the case and supporting resources to convince your readers of the soundness of your ethical point of view

Final Document

• All parts due as one cohesive document.

• Be sure to have addressed any issues or concerns that were brought to your attention from each individual part.

Final Presentation

• Create a 8-10 minute narrated presentation that is limited to 10 slides

Read More

Rubric guideline and analysis

 

IT 380 Module Two Case Study Analysis Guidelines and Rubric

Overview: This case study will help you analyze a cybersecurity scenario and identify which tenets were violated. Each skill in this paper is an essential part of the final project and the accompanying milestones in this course.

Prompt: Use the information provided in the scenario to analyze the cyber security occurrence and determine which tenet(s) were violated.

The required resources for this module detail a scenario at RSA that is similar to the one you will analyze for this assignment. Review each module resource and analyze the security breach that occurred with RSA. Note similarities between this example and the provided scenario for this assignment.

Scenario: In late May of 2011, Lockheed‐Martin was targeted by a cyberattack. Lockheed‐Martin claimed that they discovered the attack early and reacted quickly, with the result that no real harm was done.

The basis for this breach was with two‐factor authentication, where a “factor” in authentication can be something you know, something your are, or something you have. A two‐factor authentication system requires you to present instances of two of these three to authenticate with a system. Lockheed‐Martin employed a two‐factor authentication system that combined a password (something you know) with SecurID, a system produced by RSA labs that provides the “something you have” factor.

A SecurID is a small key fob that displays a number, which changes every 60 seconds. Each key fob has a unique number called its seed, which determines what number is shown in the fob at any given point in time. The server stores your username, password hash, and the seed value for your key fob, and this allows it to determine what number is showing on your key fob (as the fob is synched with your account). When you authenticate, you enter your username and regular password, then you look at the key fob and enter in the number shown there. The authentication server knows what number should be shown at that time on the key fob, and so can verify that the key fob is indeed a thing you have. This is called a one‐time password (OTP) system.

In March of 2011, someone attacked RSA with a relatively unsophisticated phishing attack with an attached Excel file with embedded code that exploited a zero‐ day vulnerability in Adobe Flash.

This enabled attackers to set up a “backdoor”—a way for them to get into the computer—where the attackers were able to steal from RSA the seed values of SecurID key fobs.

In late May of 2011, the attack moved to Lockheed‐Martin, where attackers managed to get a key logger onto a company system. The key logger recorded the username, password, and SecurID OTPs used by the victim when he or she authenticated, along with the date and time of the log in.

Two‐factor authentication is designed for just this kind of scenario. The attacker cannot authenticate because knowing the username, password, and an old OTP is not enough; the current OTP is required. However, these attackers stole seed values. For a given seed value and date/time, they could calculate the number the key fob with that seed value would display at that date and time. All the attackers had to do was to write a program that would compute, for every stolen seed value, the number that would have been showing at the date and time the key logger recorded the victim’s login. Once they found a match with the OTP the key logger recorded, they would have matched a seed value with a username. This appeared as if the attackers actually had the key fobs themselves

Critical Elements

Your paper should include these critical elements:

 Identification of cyber security tenets that were violated and rationale of cause

 Analysis of cyber security occurrence and data defense

 Recommendation of best practices to prevent further recurrence

Rubric

Guidelines for Submission: Your paper should be submitted as a 2‐ to 3‐page (in addition to the cover and reference pages) Microsoft Word document with double spacing, 12‐point Times New Roman font, and one‐inch margins. All sources must be cited in APA format.

Critical Elements

Exemplary (100%)

Proficient (90%)

Needs Improvement (70%)

Not Evident (0%)

Value

Identification of Violated Cyber security Tenets

Meets “Proficient” criteria and correctly identifies which tenets were violated with empirical supporting examples

Correctly identifies which tenets were violated with supporting examples

Identifies which tenets were violated but supporting examples have gaps

Does not identify a single tenet

30

Analysis of Data Defense

Meets “Proficient” criteria and analysis demonstrates keen insight of data defense and prevention methods

Analysis demonstrates accurate knowledge of data defense and prevention methods

Analysis demonstrates knowledge of data defense methods but needs additional information to support prevention ideas

Does not analyze the data defense and prevention methods

30

Best Practices Recommendation

Meets “Proficient” criteria and recommendation demonstrates understanding of industry best practices that would remedy the situation appropriately

Recommends industry best practices to ensure proper resolution of scenario

Recommends a single best practice to remedy situation but recommendation has gaps in strategic implementation

Does not recommend any industry best practices

30

Proper Use of Writing, Mechanics, and Grammar

Paper is free of errors in organization and grammar with applicable sources cited

Paper is mostly free of errors of organization and grammar; errors are marginal and rarely interrupt the flow; applicable sources cited

Paper contains errors of organization and grammar but errors are limited enough so that assignments can be understood; applicable sources cited

Paper contains errors of organization and grammar making the content difficult to understand

10

Total

100%

Read More

Linux System Change Logger Script

 

IMAT5122 – Computer Systems and Networks

RESIT COURSEWORK 2019/2020

Module name: Computer Systems and Networks

Module code: IMAT5122

Title of the Assignment: Resit CW - Linux System Change Logger Script

This coursework item is: Resit

This summative coursework will be marked anonymously No

The learning outcomes that are assessed by this coursework are:

1. Demonstrate a systematic understanding of knowledge and show a critical awareness of current

problems in computer systems and networks.

2. Show originality in the application of knowledge as well as systematic understanding of knowledge

and comprehension of the underlying concepts and principles associated with computer systems and

networks.

3. Critically evaluate current computer system and networking technologies and methodologies and

develop critiques of them.

This coursework is: Individual

This coursework constitutes 50 % of the overall module mark (and will be capped as it is a resit).

Date Set: 12th June 2020

Date & Time Due: 4th September 2020

Marked coursework and feedback will be available to you on:

If for any reason this is not forthcoming by the due date your module leader will

let you know why and when it can be expected. The Head of Studies

 should be informed of any issues relating to the return of marked coursework and feedback.

note: All marks and grades are provisional until moderation is complete and

confirmed by the relevant Assessment Board, and may change.

Feedbacks will be available within four weeks after submission.

When completed you are required to submit your coursework to:

1. The report needs to be uploaded to Turnitin via a link on Blackboard

Late submission of coursework policy: Late submissions will be processed in accordance with current

University regulations which state:

“the time period during which a student may submit a piece of work late without authorisation and have the work

capped at 40% [50% at PG level] if passed is 14 calendar days. Work submitted unauthorised more than 14

calendar days after the original submission date will receive a mark of 0%. These regulations apply to a student’s

first attempt at coursework. Work submitted late without authorisation which constitutes reassessment of a

previously failed piece of coursework will always receive a mark of 0%.”

Academic Offences and Bad Academic Practices:

These include plagiarism, cheating, collusion, copying work and reuse of your own work, poor referencing or the

passing off of somebody else's ideas as your own. If you are in any doubt about what constitutes an academic

offence or bad academic practice you must check with your tutor. Further information and details of how DSU can

support you, if needed, is available at: http://www.dmu.ac.uk/dmu-students/the-student-gateway/academicsupport-

office/academic-offences.aspx and

http://www.dmu.ac.uk/dmu-students/the-student-gateway/academic-support-office/bad-academic-practice.aspx

Tasks to be undertaken:

See detailed description on next pages.

Deliverables to be submitted for assessment:

Report and any supporting material required to assess the work

How the work will be marked:

See marking scheme on next pages

Module leader/tutor name: Chigozirim Justice Uzor

Contact details: chigozirim.uzor@dmu.ac.uk

IMAT5122 – Computer Systems and Networks

RESIT COURSEWORK 2019/2020

You are an IT support engineer and you have been asked to build a GNU/Linux bash script that

monitors a computer system and user activity regularly and logs key information. You need to

create a script “mySysMonitor.sh” that automatically and regularly writes to a log file

“mySysMonitor.log”. The log file will need to contain time-stamped detailed information about

significant changes to the following:

a) Current processes

b) Top 8 CPU and RAM utilising processes run by the user logged in

c) Devices plugged in (e.g. USB)

d) Disk usage

1. Overall disk usage

2. The user’s home directory (/home/some_user…)

3. Other key directories

e) Network interfaces and their states

The script will need to be written to extract only key details about the user’s activities on the

computer system such as listed above and add them to an ever-growing log file. Hence, the log file

should consist of easily readable key details only. For pass level you are expected to write a script

that sufficiently satisfies a) to e) listed above. For higher marks you are expected to add relevant

extra information (monitoring shell commands used, aggregating information to useful statistics,

etc.) and relevant features (automatic user notification at specific events, easily readable output

(e.g. HTML), configurable log levels (e.g. verbose, debug, standard and key-details only), etc.).

You may want to use the virtual GNU/Linux shell environment you have been given via the link on

Blackboard or the Linux system in the lab. Alternatively, you may install GNU/Linux (Ubuntu) on e.g.

a laptop via dual boot. Note that you should only use common pre-installed command line tools

and your work should not rely on additional programs / tools / libraries / etc. If you are unsure of

anything, please ask your tutor.

Also you may be called to present and demonstrate the system and report if your module

tutor is in doubt. Failure to proof ownership of your coursework may lead to a fail!

What should be submitted to Blackboard before the due date:

I. Documentation (5 pages maximum and minimum font size 10):

a) A specification of how to install and use the script(s) (max 1 page)

b) Design consideration – what commands you used, how you constructed your script(s)

and justification why you chose these techniques. (1 page)

c) Extensive test results with exemplary log and screen output. (1 page)

d) Conclusion / Reflection – Advantages and disadvantages of your techniques / work (1

page)

e) Bibliography – An exhaustive list of references you used in your work (1 page)

II. One ZIP file will need to be uploaded to Blackboard, containing all coursework relevant

files including scripts and exemplary log files.

The documentation needs to be submitted to Turnitin assignment submission link on

blackboard while the ZIP file needs to be uploaded separately via the Upload link on

blackboard, both in the reassessment section.

IMAT5122 – Computer Systems and Networks

COURSEWORK 2018/2019

Marking Scheme

0-5 6-11 12-17 18-23 24-30

GNU/Linux

Command Usage

No or only little ability to

use basic GNU/Linux

commands. No or only

little attempt solving the

coursework problem.

Little use of basic

GNU/Linux commands. Little

attempt solving the

coursework problem.

Fair use of basic and more

advanced GNU/Linux

commands. Fair attempt to

solve coursework.

Good use of basic and more

advanced GNU/Linux commands.

Well executed piece of

coursework.

Very good use of basic and more

advanced GNU/Linux

commands. Very well executed

piece of coursework.

0-3 4-7 8-11 12-16 17-20

GNU/Linux

Bash Scripting

No or only little ability to

use basic GNU/Linux bash

scripting.

Little use of basic

GNU/Linux bash scripting.

Fair use of basic and more

advanced GNU/Linux bash

scripting.

Good use of basic and more

advanced GNU/Linux bash

scripting.

Very good use of basic and more

advanced GNU/Linux bash

scripting.

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-25

Extra relevant

information / extra

relevant features

No, only little or nonrelevant

extra information

or extra features added to

the work

Only little or not very

relevant extra information or

extra features added to the

work

Some extra information or

extra features added to the

work. These extras are fairly

relevant.

Good extra information or extra

features added to the work.

These extras are mostly relevant.

Excellent extra information or

extra features added to the work.

These extras are highly relevant.

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-25

Report and

Referencing

Poorly written,

unstructured, unclear

justification, no testing,

none or entirely

inappropriate referencing.

Understandable, little

structure, some justification,

little testing, adequate

coverage of sources but

lacking sufficient detail in

referencing.

Reasonably written, adequate

structure, good justification,

well tested, adequate

coverage of sources but

lacking some detail in

referencing.

Well written, good structure, good

justification, thorough testing and

coverage of sources with

sufficient detail in referencing.

Very well written, very good

structure and excellent

justification, thorough testing,

comprehensive, informative and

relevant referencing.

Marking comments and feedback: Final Mark

Read More

Research, Ethics, and Professionalism in Computing

 

Resit coursework

IMAT5262: Research, Ethics, and Professionalism in Computing

1.    Relevance

This re-submission coursework is of relevance to students who deferred or failed the Research Proposal component of the IMAT5262_1920_502 module and need to re-sit or re-submit their Research Proposals ONLY. Students who failed individual components of the original coursework but received an overall mark greater than or equal to 50% do not need to re-submit the Research Proposal.

Marking of all re-sit submissions are capped at 50%. Students who deferred the Research Proposal Component of the May 2020 coursework are eligible for the full range of marks, that is, their re-submissions are not subject to the cap of 50% as applied to students who failed the coursework component in May 2020.

IMPORTANT: For students who are re-submitting due to a failed result in the Research Proposal submitted in May 2020: Please do not be deterred from submitting a high-quality Research Proposal, because of the 50% cap. You are strongly advised to aim for the highest mark achievable in order to attain the 50% pass mark in this re-submission.

Please pay special attention to your individual feedback on the failed component of the coursework as well as the general feedback on Research Proposal submissions, to be found in the Announcements folder.

The Research proposal component comprises 60% of the Final module mark with the other two components, namely, (1) the Weekly Readings and (2) the Group Presentation each comprising 20% of the Final Module mark:

Final Mark = 0.6 (Research Proposal) + 0.2 (Weekly Readings) + 0.2 (Group Presentation)

2.    Task Description

In order to cover the topics of the module, this re-sit coursework will consist of an extended research proposal. The topic of the proposal is to be suggested by the student. If you would like to consult on the topic, please do not hesitate to contact me by email before 27 July 2020 at (mayen.cunden@dmu.ac.uk). The topic must be within the broad area of the module, i.e. social and ethical consequences of computing and information technology. Students may re-submit a Research Proposal based on a different topic of the coursework to that originally submitted in May 2020.

Students should then do more detailed research on the topic, undertake a literature review that shows the relevance of the topic and develop a suitable methodology that would enable a suitable structured, scientific approach to follow in proposing to answer the research question.

The structure of the proposal should include:

·         Title

·         Abstract

·         Table of Content

·         Background / introduction

·         Research question (should be clear, focused, unambiguous, achievable)

·         Review of relevant literature, which demonstrates that the research question covers a gap in the literature

·         Critical review of applicable research methodologies, which discusses available methodologies with regards to the research question, issues of data collection and analysis. Choice of methodology should be clearly justified

·         Detailed project plan

·         Relevant references

·         Appendices

o   (appendices should be used to provide the research instrument or equivalent, e.g. a survey, case study protocol, interview plan, observation plan etc.)

o   Consideration of ethical issues should also be included in appendices (use of the ethical review forms available in the Research Proposal Folder

The project proposal should be approximately 3000 words long, excluding references and appendices. It should use the Harvard style of referencing and it CANNOT use Internet references (this does not rule out academic journal references which are accessible through the DMU resources and library web site). The proposal must be submitted in electronic form to the plagiarism detection system “Turnitin” built into Blackboard.

You are strongly advised to re-consider your re-sit submission if the Turnitin index returns a score greater than 20%.

Required Readings:

The module readings can be used as a starting point to define the research question and give an overview of methodology:

Oates, Briony (2005): Researching Information Systems and Computing. SAGE

Himma, Ken & Tavani, Herman (eds.) (2008): Handbook of Computer and Information Ethics. Wiley

Journals:

1.      Information, Communication, Ethics and Society

(www.emeraldinsight.com/info/journals/jices/jices.jsp)

2.      ETHICOMP Journal (http://www.ccsr.cse.dmu.ac.uk/journal/)

3.      International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction

 (http://www.swetswise.com/eAccess/viewTitleIssues.do?titleID=324829)

3.    Further detail

Submission deadline:              4^th September 2020, midday (12 noon)

Student support: The module leader will be available by email until 27 July 2020 and after 28^th August 2020.

4.            The Research Proposal Re-Submission for IMAT5262: Research, Ethics, and Professionalism in Computing 

 

Student Name………………………………….………………Title:…………..………………………………………………

 

		0-29	30-39	40-49	50-59		60-69	70-80	80-90	90-100
Topic	15%
	Definition
	Relevance
	Novelty
Content	30%
	conforming to academic standards
	clarity of argument
	Coherence
	abstract, key words (5-10)
Structure	20%
	balance / logic of the argument
	knowledge displayed
	quality of resources
	headings (level, numbering)
Conclusion	15%
	fit with argument
	own view
	critical reflection
Formalities	20%
	References (no Internet references)
	Style
	Language

(The percentages show the approximate weighting, they are not intended for mathematical exactness)

Comments

Total Marks (worth 60% of overall mark)

 

Read More