This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to facultyregistry.eec@coventry.ac.uk.
Cov Uni Logo

Faculty of engineering, Environment and Computing

Module: 6005-CEM Security

Assignment Brief
Module Title:
Security
Group / Indivudual
Individual
Cohort
Sep-Dec
Module Code
6005-CEM
Coursework Title
CW1: Security Audit
Handout Date
20th September 2021
Lecturer
Dan Goldsmith
Due Date and Time
3rd December 2021
Estimated Time (hrs)
20 Hours
Coursework Type
Report
% of Module Mark
50%
Submission Arrangements

Via: Aula / Turnitin

Marks release expected: None

Feedback Method: Written Feedback via LMS

Word limit: 1500

Module Learning Outcomes Assessed

  • 1. Critically evaluate a range of encryption and authentication methods for a given set of requirements.
  • 4. Critically evaluate the security of an IT ecosystem.

Task and Mark Distribution

In this coursework you are required to perform a security audit of a computer system and write a report on the results of the audit.

You will have access to a copy of the system, and the source code, you can find details on the learning platform.

The Audit

You will need to perform an audit to find potential flaws in the system. You are free to choose appropriate method(s) for the audit process. This can include (and is not limited to):

  • Code Review
  • Use of Automated tools
    • Fuzzing
    • Automated Code Review

While you are free to use any appropriate method for the audit. You will be expected to justify the decision. Why are the approaches chosen appropriate for the audit process, what are the benefits and drawbacks of the audit methods chosen.

The Report.

You are expected to write a report suitable for a technical audience.

The report should describe the process used to Audit the system, and discuss any security issues found.

It is expected that the report will contain.

  • A description of the Audit method(s) used.
    • Methods used, and Justification.
  • Brief Description of any issues found, and an assessment of their seriousness
    • Overview and description of ALL vulnerabilities found in the system.
  • Detailed description of ONE issue.
    • What is the problem
    • How Severe is the problem
    • Any Suggestions for mitigation.
  • It is expected you make use of the supporting literature, and relevant citations, to support your findings.

Report Structure

A suggested structure for the report would be:

  • Introduction
  • Audit Method(s)
    • Description and justification for the Audit methods chosen.
  • Audit Results
    • Summary of results from code audit.
    • Summary of security vulnerabilities discovered.
  • Discussion of chosen vulnerability
    • Detailed description of a single vulnerably
  • Conclusions

Submission Instructions

Please submit your final report in PDF format, via the submission link.

Marking Scheme

Component Marks
Introduction and Conclusions 10
Audit Methods 25
Audit Results 25
Discussion of Vulnerability 30
Report Structure 10

Marking Matrix

Grade Mark Description
No submission 0 No work submitted
Fail 0-25 Clear failure demonstrating little understanding of relevant theories, concepts and issues. Minimal evidence of research and use of established methodologies and incomplete knowledge of the area. Serious and fundamental errors and aspects missing. No evidence of research.
Near Fail 25-39 Very limited understanding of relevant theories, concepts and. Little evidence of research and use of established methodologies. Some relevant material will be present. Deficiencies evident in analysis. Fundamental errors and some misunderstanding likely to be present.
Pass 40-49 Meets the learning outcomes with a basic understanding of relevant theories, concepts and issues.. Demonstrates an understanding of knowledge and subject-specific theories sufficient to deal with concepts. Assessment may be incomplete and with some errors. Research scope sufficient to evidence use of some established methodologies. Some irrelevant material likely to be present
2:2 50-59 Good understanding of relevant theories, concepts and issues with some critical analysis. Research undertaken accurately using established methodologies, enquiry beyond that recommended may be present. Some errors may be present and some inclusion of irrelevant material. Good understanding, with evidence of breadth and depth, of knowledge and subject-specific theories with indications of originality and autonomy
2:1 60-69 Very good work demonstrating strong understanding of theories, concepts and issues with clear critical analysis. Thorough research, using established methodologies accurately, beyond the recommended minimum with little, if any, irrelevant material present. Very good understanding, evidencing breadth and depth, of knowledge and subject-specific theories with some originality and autonomy.
First 70-79 Excellent work with clear evidence of understanding, creativity and critical/analytical skills. Thorough research well beyond the minimum recommended using methodologies beyond the usual range. Excellent understanding of knowledge and subject-specific theories with evidence of considerable originality and autonomy.
Outstanding 80-90 Outstanding work with high degree of understanding, creativity and critical/analytical skills. Outstanding understanding of knowledge and subject-specific theories. Evidence of outstanding research well beyond minimum recommended using a range of methodologies. Demonstrates creative flair, originality and autonomy.
Exceptional 90-100 Exceptional work with very high degree of understanding, creativity and critical/analytic skills. Evidence of exceptional research well beyond minimum recommended using a range of methodologies. . Exceptional understanding of knowledge and subject-specific theories. Demonstrates creative flair, a high degree of originality and autonomy.

Notes:

  1. 1. You are expected to use the Coventry University APA style for referencing For support and advice on this students can contact Centre for Academic Writing (CAW).
  2. Please notify your registry course support team and module leader for disability support.
  3. Any student requiring an extension or deferral should follow the university process as outlined here.
  4. The University cannot take responsibility for any coursework lost or corrupted on disks, laptops or personal computer. Students should therefore regularly back-up any work and are advised to save it on the University system.
  5. If there are technical or performance issues that prevent students submitting coursework through the online coursework submission system on the day of a coursework deadline, an appropriate extension to the coursework submission deadline will be agreed. This extension will normally be 24 hours or the next working day if the deadline falls on a Friday or over the weekend period. This will be communicated via your Module Leader.
  6. You are encouraged to check the origianlty of your work by using the draft Turnitin links on Aula
  7. Collusion between students (where sections of your work are similar to the work submitted by other students in this or previous module cohorts) is taken extremely seriously and will be reported to the academic conduct panel. This applies to both courseworks and exam answers.
  8. A marked difference between your writing style, knowledge and skill level demonstrated in class discussion, any test conditions and that demonstrated in a coursework assignment may result in you having to undertake a Viva Voce in order to prove the coursework assignment is entirely your own work.
  9. If you make use of the services of a proof reader in your work you must keep your original version and make it available as a demonstration of your written efforts. Also, please read the univeristy Proof reading policy
  10. You must not submit work for assessment that you have already submitted (partially or in full), either for your current course or for another qualification of this university, unless this is specifically provided for in your assignment brief or specific course or module information. Where earlier work by you is citable, ie. it has already been published/submitted, you must reference it clearly. Identical pieces of work submitted concurrently will also be considered to be self-plagiarism.