Categories
Uncategorized

A. Determine why the attack on Azumer Waters infrastructure was successful, including the specific vulnerabilities that allowed the attack to occur.

KOP1 — TASK 1: ANALYSIS RESPONSE
MANAGING INFORMATION SECURITY — C843
PRFA — KOP1
COMPETENCIES
4043.3.1 : Information Security Governance
The graduate recommends modifications to established information security governance to increase
information assurance levels within an organization.
4043.3.2 : Threat & Vulnerability Management
The graduate recommends risk mitigation strategies that meet regulatory and ethical compliance.
4043.3.3 : Information Security Management
The graduate recommends changes to established security management programs in response to a cyberrelated incident on an organization.
4043.3.4 : Incident Response
The graduate develops security incident response plans that align to an organization’s security goals and
objectives and maintain business continuity.
INTRODUCTION
Many organizations marginalize the management of the security of their infrastructure in hopes that they
will not be the target of cyberattacks. However, cyberattacks happen frequently and tend to become more
sophisticated over time. In reality, every organization is a likely target of malicious actors. These attacks
result in a range of impacts on an organization and its core business and could significantly interrupt
operations.
To be proactive, organizations need to have structures, processes, and plans in place to counter and respond
to potential attacks and to deal with the consequences of successful attacks. A suitable security management
plan and well-defined security goals that support the overall goals of the organization can ensure a
reasonable level of business continuity, even in the case of security incidents.
In any organization, the individuals on the IT staff must work together to support the security goals of the
organization. These individuals play significant roles in detecting and preventing security incidents before
they occur. In the case of successful attacks, security management professionals are tasked with acting
quickly to mitigate the attack’s effects.
In this assessment, you will refer to the attached “Case Study,” which contains details regarding a security
incident at a small non-governmental organization (NGO). In part I of this task, you will analyze the security
incident and provide specific examples and details from the case study to support your risk assessment. In
part II, you will create a plan to effectively address the aftermath of the incident and manage the NGO’s
ongoing security risks.
TASK OVERVIEW SUBMISSIONS EVALUATION REPORT
REQUIREMENTS
Your submission must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of the submission and no
more than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from
sources, even if cited correctly. An originality report is provided when you submit your task that can be used
as a guide.
You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that
will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric
aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.
PartI: Incident Analysis and Response
A. Determine why the attack on Azumer Water’s infrastructure was successful, including the specific
vulnerabilities that allowed the attack to occur. Provide details from the case study to support your
claims.
B. Explain how the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of Azumer Water’s operations and PII
(personally identifying information) data have been compromised, using NIST, ISO 27002, or another
industry-standard framework to support your claims.
C. Identify a federal regulation this NGO violated, providing a specific example from the case study as
evidence of Azumer Water’s noncompliance.
D. Recommend immediate steps to mitigate the impact of the incident, using specific examples from the case
study to justify how these steps would mitigate the impact.
E. Explain how having an incident response plan in place will benefit Azumer Water, using details from the
case study to support your explanation.
PartII: Risk Assessment and Management
F. Discuss two processes to increase information assurance levels within the organization and bring Azumer
Water into compliance with the violated federal regulation identified in part C.
G. Recommend technical solutions to counter the remaining effects of the attack in the case study and to
prevent future attacks.
H. Recommend an organizational structure for IT and security management, including a logical delineation of
roles and adequate coverage of responsibilities, to support the efficient discovery and mitigation of
future incidents.
I. Describe your risk management approach for Azumer Water based on the likelihood, severity, and impact
of the risks in the case study.
J. Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or
summarized.
K. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.
File Restrictions
File name may contain only letters, numbers, spaces, and these symbols: ! -_. * ‘ ( )
File size limit: 200 MB
File types allowed: doc, docx, rtf, xls, xlsx, ppt, pptx, odt, pdf, txt, qt, mov, mpg, avi, mp3, wav, mp4, wma, flv, asf, mpeg,
wmv, m4v, svg, tif, tiff, jpeg, jpg, gif, png, zip, rar, tar, 7z
RUBRIC
A: SUCCESS OF ATTACK
B: COMPROMISED DATA
C: REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
D: IMMEDIATE STEPS
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not
determine a cause for the
success of the attack.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission determines a
cause for the success of the
attack, but the cause is not
plausible, or the included
vulnerabilities and details from
the case study are not specific or
do not support the claims.
COMPETENT
The submission determines a
plausible cause for the success of
the attack, including specific
vulnerabilities and details from
the case study to support the
claims.
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not explain
how the confidentiality,
integrity, and availability of
Azumer Water’s data have been
compromised.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission explains how
the confidentiality, integrity, and
availability of Azumer Water’s
operations and PII have been
compromised but does not
support the claims with an
industry-standard framework.
COMPETENT
The submission explains how the
confidentiality, integrity, and
availability of Azumer Water’s
operations and PII have been
compromised and supports the
claims with an industry-standard
framework.
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not
identify a federal regulation.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission identifies a
federal regulation, but the
regulation is not relevant to the
case study, or the example from
the case study is not specific or
does not show evidence of
Azumer Water’s noncompliance.
COMPETENT
The submission identifies a
federal regulation that Azumer
Water violated and provides a
specific example from the case
study that shows evidence of
Azumer Water’s noncompliance.
E: INCIDENT RESPONSE PLAN
F: PROCESSES
G: TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not
recommend immediate steps.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission recommends
immediate steps, but the steps
would not plausibly mitigate the
impact of the incident, or the
steps are not justified with
specific examples from the case
study.
COMPETENT
The submission recommends
immediate steps that would
plausibly mitigate the impact of
the incident and justifies these
steps with specific examples
from the case study.
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not explain
how having an incident response
plan in place will benefit Azumer
Water.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission explains the
benefits of having an incident
response plan, but the
information provided is
inaccurate, or the details
provided are not specific to the
case study or do not support the
explanation.
COMPETENT
The submission explains the
benefits of having an incident
response plan in place at Azumer
Water, using details from the
case study to support the
explanation.
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not discuss
2 processes.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission discusses 2
processes, but the processes
would not increase information
assurance levels within the
organization or bring Azumer
Water into compliance with the
violated federal regulation
identified in part C.
COMPETENT
The submission discusses 2
processes that would increase
information assurance levels
within the organization and bring
Azumer Water into compliance
with the violated federal
regulation identified in part C.
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not
recommend technical solutions.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission recommends
technical solutions, but the
technical solutions would not
counter the remaining effects of
COMPETENT
The submission recommends
technical solutions that would
counter the remaining effects of
the attack and prevent future
potential attacks.
H: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
I: RISK MANAGEMENT APPROACH
J:SOURCES
K: PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION
the attack or would not prevent
future potential attacks.
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not
recommend an organizational
structure for IT and security
management.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission recommends an
organizational structure but
does not include a logical
delineation of roles or adequate
coverage of responsibilities, or
the organizational structure
would not plausibly support the
efficient discovery or mitigation
of future incidents.
COMPETENT
The submission recommends an
organizational structure,
including a logical delineation of
roles and adequate coverage of
responsibilities, for IT and
security management that would
plausibly support the efficient
discovery and mitigation of
future incidents.
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not
describe the risk management
approach for Azumer Water.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission describes the
risk management approach for
Azumer Water but contains
inaccurate information or is not
based on the likelihood, severity,
or impact of the risks in the case
study.
COMPETENT
The submission describes the
risk management approach for
Azumer Water based on the
likelihood, severity, and impact of
the risks in the case study.
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include
both in-text citations and a
reference list for sources that
are quoted, paraphrased, or
summarized.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission includes in-text
citations for sources that are
quoted, paraphrased, or
summarized and a reference list;
however, the citations or
reference list is incomplete or
inaccurate.
COMPETENT
The submission includes in-text
citations for sources that are
properly quoted, paraphrased, or
summarized and a reference list
that accurately identifies the
author, date, title, and source
location as available. Or the
candidate does not use sources.
NOT EVIDENT APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
COMPETENT
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
CaseStudy.docx
Content is unstructured, is
disjointed, or contains pervasive
errors in mechanics, usage, or
grammar. Vocabulary or tone is
unprofessional or distracts from
the topic.
Content is poorly organized, is
difficult to follow, or contains
errors in mechanics, usage, or
grammar that cause confusion.
Terminology is misused or
ineffective.
Content reflects attention to
detail, is organized, and focuses
on the main ideas as prescribed
in the task or chosen by the
candidate. Terminology is
pertinent, is used correctly, and
effectively conveys the intended
meaning. Mechanics, usage, and
grammar promote accurate
interpretation and
understanding.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *