Documentation (10) Grammar, spelling, formatting and how well the investigation is documented. Very poor. For example not referenced, doesn't address the question or very poor spelling and grammar making it hard to understand. Some items are referenced. Poor grammar, spelling. Referenced. Good spelling, grammar. Layout is consistent and make sense. Good quality documentation. All items referenced, figures are labelled. Excellent. Publishable quality.

Implications (30) Descriptions of the issues found and there severity. Brief description. Poor or obvious implications for each vulnerability found. Or only some implications are addressed or the implications don't match up with the severity of the problem. Limited description of the issue and the implications . Either all aspect covered but to a superficial level or only goes into detail of a few of the issues found. Good description of the issue and its implications. All issues addresses. Excellent description of the issue and its implications. Accurate and concise description of each issue. Each issue includes a description of how to exploit the problem. Securing (30) Description of how to address the security issues raised discovered. Brief description doesn't really secure the system. Poor or obvious way of securing the system, e.g. overall recommendation of just firewall/patching rather than the way of dealing with each problem. Limited description of how to secure the issues found. Good description of how to secure the issues found. Each identified issues is addressed. Excellent description of how to secure the problems found.

This allows you to estimate your mark based on which critria you have completed. You should note that you are not guaranteed to get the mark you work out using this tool. This page does not save your settings Fail(10) Pass(50) Merit(60) Distinction(70) 80(80) Investigation (30) Description of the way the investigation was performed Brief description. Investigation is superficial. Some security issues have been identified via the use of automatic tools. Only investigates one area of the system e.g. just web shop, OS or the running services. Investigation includes multiple aspects (OS, services, application etc). Or goes in depth into a single aspect of the system. Good coverage across three or more aspects (OS, services, application etc). Or goes in depth into a two aspects. Excellent coverage across all aspects of the system. Passwords have been recovered rather than overwritten.

Securing (30) Brief description doesn’t re- ally secure the system. Poor or obvious way of securing the system, e.g. overall recommendation of just firewall/patching rather than the way of dealing with each problem. Limited description of how to secure the issues found. Good description of how to secure the issues found. Each identified issues is ad- dressed. Excellent description of how to secure the problems found. Documentation(10) Very poor. For example not referenced, doesn’t address the question or very poor spelling and grammar mak- ing it hard to understand. Some items are referenced. Poor grammar, spelling. Referenced. Good spelling, grammar. Layout is consis- tent and make sense. Good quality documenta- tion. All items referenced, figures are labelled. Excellent. Publishable qual- ity.

Implications (30) Brief description. Poor or obvious implications for each vulnerability found. Or only some implications are addressed or the impli- cations don’t match up with the severity of the problem. Limited description of the issue and the implications . Either all aspect covered but to a superficial level or only goes into detail of a few of the issues found. Good description of the is- sue and its implications. All issues addresses. Excellent description of the issue and its implications. Accurate and concise de- scription of each issue. Each issue includes a description of how to exploit the prob- lem.

Assessment criteria Fail (10) Pass (50) Merit (60) Distinction (70) 80 (80) Investigation (30) Brief description. Investigation is superficial. Some security issues have been identified via the use of automatic tools. Only inves- tigates one area of the sys- tem e.g. just web shop, OS or the running services. Investigation includes mul- tiple aspects (OS, services, application etc). Or goes in depth into a single aspect of the system. Good coverage across three or more aspects (OS, ser- vices, application etc). Or goes in depth into a two as- pects. Excellent coverage across all aspects of the system. Pass- words have been recovered rather than overwritten.

The assignment work should be submitted as a Word document (.docx) or Portable Document Format (.pdf) to the appropriate assignment submission slot on Blackboard1 before 11:59pm on the 25th. Late work Late work must be submitted to eLearn in the required assignment slot. Penalties for late submission Except where an extension of the hand-in deadline date has been approved (using extenuating circumstances forms), lateness penalties will be applied in accordance with University policy as shown in Table 12. (Working) Days Late Penalty up to 5 maximum mark 50% more than 5 0%