| Course Code |
Class Code |
Assignment Title |
Total Points |
| CYB-630 |
CYB-630-O500 |
Cyber Law Inquiries and Incidents |
100.0 |
| Criteria |
Percentage |
Unsatisfactory (0.00%) |
Less than Satisfactory (65.00%) |
Satisfactory (75.00%) |
Good (85.00%) |
Excellent (100.00%) |
Comments |
Points Earned |
| Content |
100.0% |
| Legal Cyber Inquiry |
30.0% |
The student provides an incomplete description of why a legal cyber inquiry would need to be made, fully addressing procedures for testing, enforcing, and investigating breaches of policy. The student fails to include applicable data breach notification laws. Subject knowledge is not evident. |
The student outlines a few components of why a legal cyber inquiry would need to be made, fully addressing procedures for testing, enforcing, and investigating breaches of policy, but element details are lacking. The student includes little knowledge about applicable data breach notification laws. Little subject knowledge is evident. |
The student appropriately describes why a legal cyber inquiry would need to be made, fully addressing procedures for testing, enforcing, and investigating breaches of policy; some element justifications are included. The student outlines several applicable data breach notification laws. Subject knowledge appears to be good. |
The student provides a detailed description of why a legal cyber inquiry would need to be made, fully addressing procedures for testing, enforcing, and investigating breaches of policy; justifications are accurate. The student clearly includes all applicable data breach notification laws. Subject knowledge is good. |
The student comprehensively describes why a legal cyber inquiry would need to be made, fully addressing procedures for testing, enforcing, and investigating breaches of policy; information and justifications are accurate and appropriate. The student thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates all applicable data breach notification laws. Subject knowledge is excellent. |
| Incident Response Process |
| 20.0% |
The student provides an incomplete description of the process for an incident response to a ransomware event. Subject knowledge is not evident. |
The student outlines a few components of the process for an incident response to a ransomware event, but element details are lacking. Little subject knowledge is evident. |
The student appropriately describes the process for an incident response to a ransomware event; some element justifications are included. Subject knowledge appears to be good. |
The student provides a detailed description of the process for an incident response to a ransomware event; justifications are accurate. Subject knowledge appears is good. |
The student comprehensively describes the process for an incident response to a ransomware event; information and justifications are accurate and appropriate. Subject knowledge is excellent. |
| Analyze Ethical Implications Made From the Christian Worldview |
20.0%
The student fails to analyze the ethical implications of cybersecurity policies and regulations from the Christian worldview. |
The student analyzes the ethical implications of cybersecurity policies and regulations, but provides some contradiction to the Christian worldview. |
The student analyzes the ethical implications of cybersecurity policies and regulations from the Christian worldview. |
The student analyzes the ethical implications of cybersecurity policies and regulations from the Christian worldview with sound doctrine. |
The student analyzes the ethical implications of cybersecurity policies and regulations from the Christian worldview with sound doctrine and justification. |
| Sources |
| 10.0% |
No outside academic sources are used to support major points. |
Few relevant sources beyond assigned readings are used to support major points. Important relevant sources are neglected. Quoted material and paraphrasing are overused. |
Sources are adequate, relevant, and extend beyond assigned readings. Quoted material and paraphrasing are included to support major points and writer’s idea development. |
Sources are academic, current, and/or relevant to support major points. Quoted material and paraphrasing is used effectively and consistently to support the major points and writer’s idea development. |
Sources are academic, comprehensive, current, and/or relevant. Quoted material and paraphrasing expertly support, extend, and inform ideas but do not substitute for the writer’s own idea development. Sources are well synthesized to support major points. |
| Argument Logic and Construction |
10.0%
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. |
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. |
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. |
Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. |
Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.) |
| 5.0% |
Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident. Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of primer prose indicates writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately. |
Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech appropriately. |
Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part. |
The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to communicate clearly. |
The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) |
5.0%
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are employed. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. |
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Audience-appropriate language is employed. |
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech. |
The writer is clearly in command of standard, written academic English. |
| Total Weightage |
100% |
