Explain how different types of IDS work, how they are different from firewalls, and contrast their strengths and pitfalls.

CI6240 Internet Security 2014/15

Task:

Write a short paper (no more than 2000 words including abstract and references) on one of the following:

1. Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS)

Explain how different types of IDS work, how they are different from firewalls, and contrast their strengths and pitfalls.

2. Strengths and Weaknesses of Elliptic Curve Cryptography in Mobile Networks

You need not address the mathematics of elliptic curves – for the purposes of this report you can consider the algorithm as a “black box”.

3. Relative Merits of the Biba and Bell-LaPadula Models for Access Control.

Describe and compare both models and show how they contrast with the access control techniques covered in the module material.

4. Security Assessment Frameworks

Review methodologies that have been suggested in the literature for performing security assessments of an organization. For each framework, indicate how mature and useful it might be for assessing an SME (Small or Medium Enterprise).

5. Cloud Computing and Its Security Challenges

Illicit typical challenges that arise when trying to address the security of cloud computing. You should discuss all the different categories of assets, threats and vulnerabilities that may be relevant.

6. TLS – A Protocol for Internet Security

For this report, first review the concept of asymmetric/public key cryptography and then explain how the TLS protocol helps with establishing a secure connection between web browsers and web service. In particular, discuss how certificates can be validated by the web clients.

Structure your document as a formal academic paper with abstract (<100 words), introduction, conclusion and references. List all your sources and cite them in the text using a recognized system (e.g. Harvard).

Mark Allocation:

Abstract: 10%

Introduction and Conclusion: 35%

Content: 40%

Quality of Presentation and Referencing: 15%

Submission:

Typical Expectations: (Marks shown in brackets)

Abstract: Clear summary of entire report including conclusions. Of appropriate length, not exceeding 100 words. (7-10)

Basically clear, but concentrating mostly on what the report was intended to achieve rather than what it did achieve. Of appropriate length but not exceeding 100 words. (6)

A kind of additional introduction with nothing about the findings of the report. A little too long or short. (5)

Shows some misunderstanding of what an abstract is for. References cited in introduction. Significantly too long or short. (4)

Shows significant misunderstanding of what an abstract is for. Excessively over (or under) word-count. (0-3)

Introduction and Conclusion:

Appropriate length (introduction and conclusion combined maybe ¼ of the total paper). Introduction clearly introduces ideas which are fleshed out later in the document. Conclusion draws those ideas together and shows concisely what has been learned. (25-35)

Appropriate length (see above). Introduction is fairly clear but maybe leaves the reader still a little confused about the purpose of the document. The conclusion clearly lists the points covered but doesn’t draw any particularly significant lessons from them. (21-24)

Slightly too long or short relative to rest of paper. Introduction states what the paper is about without indicating its specific intentions, and the conclusion merely summarizes (without comment) what has been covered. (18-20)

Significantly too long or short. Introduction gives only a vague general idea of what the paper is about and the conclusion summarizes – perhaps incompletely – what has been covered. (14-17)

Introduction and conclusion non-existent, or excessively short and incomplete, or excessively long and containing inappropriate material. Introduction does little to prepare the reader for the main bulk of the paper. No significant attempt summarize or draw conclusions. (0-13)

Content: Evidence that the student has gathered and understood a significant amount of material appropriate to the topic. Ideas brought in from module and linked with what was learned from the literature. Explanations clear and appropriately linked to diagrams, tables etc. Ideas contrasted in an engaging and intelligent manner. (28-40)

Evidence that the student has gathered and at least partially understood a significant amount of material appropriate to the topic. Some attempt to bring in ideas from the module and linked with what was learned. Explanations reasonably clear. Diagrams, tables etc. used in an appropriate manner. (24-27)

Evidence that the student has gathered and at least partially understood a modest amount of material appropriate to the topic. Some attempt to bring in ideas from the module. Attempts to use diagrams, tables etc. in an appropriate manner. (20-23)

Evidence that the student has read at least one appropriate source document and made some effort to understand it – even if his/her attempts to explain it are a bit confused. Some attempt to apply at least one concept from the module. (16-19)

No appropriate source material consulted, or ideas from sources badly misunderstood. Explanations poor and nonsensical. (0-15)

Quality of Presentation and Referencing:

Well laid out in a style appropriate for a journal or conference proceedings. Sections numbered and titled. Diagrams and tables numbered, captioned and referenced in the text. Sources of all material acknowledged. Appropriate technical English (no verbal contractions or proper pronouns). References listed in appropriate style, and cited in text numerically or using the Harvard style. (11-15)

Reasonably well organized and formatted, even if justification is out or fonts inconsistent in places. Diagrams maybe a little awkward, but still readable. References slightly incomplete and not all of them cited in the text. Some confusion between Harvard and numeric referencing systems (9-10)

Somewhat disorganized. Fonts and font-sizes inconsistent. Some diagrams fuzzy and hard to read. References listed at end, but not cited in the text. Written in a somewhat “conversational” style. (8)

Rather disorganized. Fonts and font-sizes inconsistent. Some diagrams fuzzy and hard to read. Incomplete reference list at end, but not sources cited in the text. Written in a very “conversational” style. (6-7)

Very disorganized. Poorly written to the extent that the meaning is severely obscured. No references, or references very incomplete and none of them cited in the text. Diagrams illegible. (0-5)