Computer Science

Assessment Information

Assessment 3: Digital Forensic Report This document supplies detailed information on assessment tasks for this unit.

Key information • Due: Friday 2 October 2020 by 20:00 (AEST) • Weighting: 60% • Word count: 4000 words

Learning Outcomes This assessment assesses the following Unit Learning Outcomes (ULO) and related Graduate Learning Outcomes (GLO):

Unit Learning Outcome (ULO) Graduate Learning Outcome (GLO)

ULO 1: Apply knowledge of security on Windows network domain and follow standard procedure to investigate different types of cyber-crime

GLO 1: Discipline knowledge and capabilities GLO 3: Digital literacy GLO 4: Critical thinking

ULO 2: Investigate the usefulness of various forensic techniques and apply relevant methods to gain access and recover computer crime data

GLO 1: Discipline knowledge and capabilities GLO 3: Digital literacy GLO 4: Critical thinking GLO 5: Problem solving

ULO 3: Analyze and review findings to further probe and investigate computer crimes

GLO 1: Discipline knowledge and capabilities GLO 3: Digital literacy GLO 4: Critical thinking GLO 5: Problem solving

ULO 4: Reflect on findings and prepare reports for the target audience with justified findings

GLO 2: Communication GLO 4: Critical thinking GLO 5: Problem solving

Purpose Students should demonstrate their ability to review and critique the digital forensic hackathons hosted in recent years and their write-ups. Understanding these digital forensic tasks and their technical solutions will significantly help students deepen the understanding of the industry’s standard practice and general expectations of forensic abilities in the job market. Hackathon experiences and achievements have been valuable in the cybersecurity industry. Students will identify, investigate, and evaluate six forensic hackathon tasks and the associated write-ups. Students will be assessed on their ability to identify the appropriate tasks and write-ups, reproduce the technical solutions, justify the technical findings, reflect on the learning experiences, and present a professionally written essay.

Instructions Students are required to independently write an essay of approximately 4,000 words and exhibits to support the findings and a bibliography. This essay should consist of the following parts:

• a professionally made title page with student name and student ID • an abstract of 200 words capturing the highlights of the findings • a non-technical section summarizing the six identified hackathon tasks and brief descriptions of their

write-ups along with justifications of their digital forensic relevance • a non-technical section critiquing the issues of the existing write-ups of each hackathon task in multiple

perspectives • a technical section reproducing the solutions of the six hackathon tasks by using proper digital forensic

tools with supporting evidence (screenshots) • a non-technical section reflecting personal learning experiences towards solving these tasks and aligning

these to our curriculum • conclusion (around 150 words) • reference (Harvard style)

Assessment Information

All submitted essays will be assessed in the following five facets. Each facet has 12 maximal marks, and the total mark for the essay is 60. The marking rubrics on the next page reflect a summary of these facets with various competence levels. The five facets are explained as follows:

1. Quality of presentation. The essays should be written independently with original ideas, which will be measured by the TurnItIn similarity scores. Deakin values independent and original work. The essay should contain approximately 4,000 words in well-organized paragraphs and sections without grammar mistakes. The paragraphs and sections should follow logical orders and be well connected. A proper referencing style (Harvard) should be followed.

2. Quality of identified hackathon tasks. The six identified hackathon tasks should be independent of each other so that they cover a broad spectrum of digital forensic investigations. The hackathon tasks should be obtained from credible venues, and they should be less than three years old and maximally five years old. The existing write-ups need to be summarized in concise language. All six identified tasks should be justified to be related to the digital forensic investigation in the essay. All necessary links and references should be provided in the essay.

3. Quality of analyzing existing write-ups. The write-ups should be analyzed thoroughly to identify the room for improvement. Most write-ups are suboptimal, missing certain steps, and even contain errors because they are quickly written by hackathon participants soon after the event. If a hackathon task has multiple write-ups, different versions of write-ups should be compared to hypothesize the best method to solve the hackathon task; if there is only one write-up available, an alternative solution should be proposed to improve the current solution.

4. Quality of solving the identified hackathon tasks. Individual solutions should be developed based on the proposal in the previous section. Individual solutions towards the hackathon tasks should be provided with evidence like screenshots with step-by-step instructions. The solutions should be correct and fully explained. Significant contributions beyond the existing write-ups should be highlighted and summarized.

5. Quality of reflections. Personal reflections on the learning experiences of solving these hackathon tasks with alignment to our curriculum should be presented. In particular, forensic tools and investigation methods should be aligned with the topics covered in the unit. Highlights of learning experiences should be synthesized.

Hints:

• Cyber security hackathons are also known as “wargames”, “Capture-The-Flag”, or “CTF”. Using alternative words will improve your search results.

• The website https://ctftime.org/ lists almost all hackathons occurred in the past where the references to the writeups can be also traced.

SIT703 Advanced Digital Forensics Assessment Task 3: Digital Forensic Report Rubric

Criteria (equally weighted, each has 12 marks max)

Bronze (0 – 4 marks) Most of the following conditions are satisfied:

Silver (4 – 8 marks) All the following conditions are satisfied:

Gold (8 – 12 marks) All the following conditions are satisfied:

Criteria 1: Quality of presentation

Turnitin similarity score < 30%, essay length above 3,000 words, occasional grammar mistakes, correct use of Harvard referencing style, use mainly lay language and prescribed genre

Turnitin similarity score < 15%, essay length approximately 4,000 words, organized sentences, paragraphs, and sections, rare grammar mistakes, correct use of Harvard referencing style, use some discipline-specific language and prescribed genre

Turnitin similarity score < 7%, essay length approximately 4,000 words, well organized sentences, paragraphs, and sections, no grammar mistakes, correct and consistent use of Harvard referencing style, use mostly discipline-specific language and appropriate genre

Criteria 2:

Quality of the identified hackathon tasks

Six independent hackathon tasks, summary of the existing write-ups, fair justifications to digital forensics, some links and references

Six independent hackathon tasks, credible venues, within the recent 5 years, concise summary of the existing write-ups, good justifications to digital forensics, most links and references

Six independent hackathon tasks, highly credible venues, within the recent 3 years, concise summary of the existing write-ups, excellent justifications to digital forensics, all necessary links and references

Criteria 3:

Quality of analysis

Identified issues of the existing write-ups, fair analysis, proposal for improvement

Clearly identified issues of the existing write- ups, good analysis, feasible proposal for improvement

Clearly identified issues of the existing write- ups, excellent analysis, novel and feasible proposal for improvement

Criteria 4:

Quality of reproducing solutions

Individual solution consistent with the proposal, most evidence provided in details, clear instructions, correct and partially explained solutions

Individual solution consistent with the proposal, all evidence provided in details, clear instructions, correct and fully explained solutions, contributions beyond the existing write-ups

Individual and novel solution consistent with the proposal, all evidence provided in details, clear and repeatable instructions, correct and fully explained solutions, significant contributions beyond the existing write-ups

Criteria 5:

Quality of reflections

Fair reflections on the learning experiences, fair alignment to the curriculum, acceptable level of synthesized knowledge and experiences

Good reflections on the learning experiences, good alignment to the curriculum, good level of synthesized knowledge and experiences

Excellent reflections on the learning experiences, excellent alignment to the curriculum, outstanding level of synthesized knowledge and experiences

Order now and get 10% discount on all orders above $50 now!!The professional are ready and willing handle your assignment.

ORDER NOW »»