Computer sciences and Information technology

IT Risk Analysis
Project description
University of Wolverhampton
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Department of Mathematics and Computing

Module Assessment

Module 5CI003 IT Risk Analysis
Module Leader Adrian Priest
Semester Two
Year 2013/14
Assessment One
% of module mark 100%
Due Date 12th May 2014
Hand-in – what? Report
Hand-in- where? Wolf
Pass mark 40%
Method of retrieval Rework and re-present
Feedback In class
Collection of marked work In class
Learning outcomes:

LO1 – You will be able to apply appropriate theory, tools and techniques to the assessment and development of secure computer-based systems.

Specifically, you will be able to identify assets in an organisation and evaluate potential threats and the losses that may be incurred as a result of those threats. You will use risk analysis methods to assist in that process and will be aware of available tools to enable that process.

LO2 – You will be able to identify and specify IT Security requirements to meet business needs.

From analysis of the business needs of an organisation you will be able to identify the basic IT security policies and procedures required to operate in a secure way.

LO3 – You will be able to analyse and evaluate risks to an organisation and its IT assets and recommend appropriate countermeasures to IT system.

Having determined the risks that an organisation may face in respect of IT Security, you will be able to evaluate these in terms of probability of occurrence and impact on the organisation, and will be able to recommend appropriate steps to be taken based on your evaluation.

5CI003 Coursework Assignment 2013/14 sem 1
Assessment Criteria + Feedback

NAME Student No Grade Awarded
32%
Assessment criteria Excellent (A)
70 – 100% Very Good (B)
60 – 69% Good (C)
50 – 59% Adequate (D)
40 – 49% Poor (E)
20 – 39% Fail (F)
0 – 19%
Report. Excellent presentation – well structured, clear, concise, consistent, cohesive and should include contents page. Good standard of writing and professionalism for a business report. Reads well enough for clarity. May lack a professional style. Template used but inconsistent presentation. Poor standard of writing. Dis-jointed or inappropriate content.
(3) No serious attempt or non-submission.
Weighting 10%
Risks. Comprehensive Identification of Risks to the organisation and its IT/IS within the scenario. Shows evidence of ability to identify potential risks. A set of relevant risks identified, may have omissions. Some key risks identified.
(6.75) Risks identified not relevant to the case study. No serious attempt or non-submission.
Weighting 15%
Risk evaluation. Comprehensive Analysis and evaluation of the identified
Risks. Evidence of analysis + evaluation of risks in relation to the business context. Justifies
Reasons for giving rating of risks identified. Use of techniques to rank risks but may lack depth of analysis + evaluation. Limited or no use of techniques in analysis + evaluation. Lack of depth of analysis.
(4.5) No serious attempt or non-submission.
Weighting 15%
Counter-measures for identified risk. Comprehensive Identification and justification of appropriate countermeasures to the identified risks. A full range of alternative or complimentary counter-measures to an identified risk should be considered. Shows evidence of understanding measures appropriate for a given risk and ability to consider all options. Justifies why countermeasures selected are appropriate. Relevant counter-measures
Given for the risks identified. Alternatives considered. May lack some justification. Knowledge of countermeasures shown for risks but may lack justification or the consideration of alternatives. Limited countermeasures or inappropriate countermeasures for identified risks.
(9) No serious attempt or non-submission
Weighting 30%
Recommendation for the business of measures to be taken and priorities. appropriate solutions to suit their needs, with justification of approach and prioritized implementation schedule.
Provides detailed justification for the recommendations given. Appropriate justified apprioach for business case. Atempt to select approach for the business and provide justification + prioritisation. Minimal recommendations. Approach lacks justification. Prioritisation poor or not considered.
(9) No serious attempt or non-submission.
Weighting 30%

ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK COMMENTS:

Some analysis is done in this report and some risks identified. But these risks are insufficient in number and variety. In places this report is brief and very general, in particular in the recommendations and conclusions.It was expected that a list of risks would be produced (a table is most suitable) in order to begin answering the question. Double line spacing has been used in this report.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂