Objective: This assignment challenges students to delve into the world of cybercrime, exploring the mechanics, vulnerabilities, and potential solutions related

to five distinct network security threats.

Deliverables:

$1.$Written Report: A well$-$structured report$($approximately $20-25$pages excluding references$)$addressing the following for each of the five chosen Network

Security crimes:

o Crime Overview:

Provide a concise definition and explanation of cybercrime.

o Network Security Context:

Explain how this crime targets or exploits network security weaknesses.

o Anatomy of the Crime:

Describe the step$-$by$-$step process of committing the crime, including the tools and techniques used by attackers.

o Vulnerability Analysis:

Identify and explain the security gaps or weaknesses that make the crime possible.

o Diagrammatic Representation:

Create a clear and informative diagram$($e$.$g$.,$flowchart$,$ network diagram$)$illustrating the crime's execution.

o Potential Solutions: Propose practical and effective countermeasures

or solutions to prevent or mitigate the crime.

$2.$Literature Review: A separate section$(2-3$pages$)$concisely reviews at least $3-5$reputable sources

$($academic papers, industry reports, etc.$)$that supportyour analysis and proposed solutions.

I. Content and Analysis$(30$Marks$)$

$$Crime Selection $(5$Marks$)$

o Excellent $(5$Marks$)$: Crimes are relevant and distinct and demonstratea good understanding of network security threats.

o Good $(3-4$Marks$)$: Crimes are mostly relevant, with some overlap or aless clear connection to network security.

o Fair $(1-2$Marks$)$: Crime selection is somewhat random or lacks a strongconnection to network security.

o Needs Improvement $(0$Marks$)$: Crimes are poorly chosen or irrelevant to the assignment's focus.

$$Crime Overview & Network Security Context $(5$Marks per crime$)$

o Excellent $(5$Marks$)$: Explanations are clear and accurate anddemonstrate a strong grasp of the crime and its network security

implications.

o Good $(3-4$Marks$)$: Explanations are generally accurate but may lack depth or a nuanced understanding of the network security context.

o Fair $(1-2$Marks$)$: Explanations are partially accurate or incomplete, with some confusion about the crime or its relevance to network security.

o Needs Improvement $(0$Marks$)$: Explanations are inaccurate, unclear,or demonstrate a poor understanding of the crime and its networksecurity implications.

$$Anatomy of the Crime $(5$Marks per crime$)$

o Excellent $(5$Marks$)$: Detailed and accurate description of the crime's execution, including tools and techniques.

o Good $(3-4$Marks$)$: The description is accurate primarily but may omit some key steps or details about tools and techniques.

o Fair $(1-2$Marks$)$: The description is partially accurate or incomplete, lacking sufficient detail about the crime's execution.

o Needs Improvement $(0$Marks$)$: Description is inaccurate, unclear, or

missing crucial information about how the crime was committed.

$$Vulnerability Analysis $(5$Marks per crime$)$

o Excellent $(5$Marks$)$: Identifies and clearly explains the specific security gaps or weaknesses exploited by the crime.

o Good $(3-4$Marks$)$: Identifies some vulnerabilities, but explanations maybe general or lack depth.

o Fair $(1-2$Marks$)$: Vulnerability identification is incomplete or inaccurate, with weak or missing explanations.

o Needs Improvement $(0$Marks$)$: Fails to identify relevant vulnerabilitiesor provides inaccurate or irrelevant information.

$$Potential Solutions $(5$Marks per crime$)$

o Excellent$(5$Marks$)$: Solutions are practical, effective, and well$-$justified,demonstrating critical thinking and problem$-$solving skills.

o Good $(3-4$Marks$)$: Solutions are generally feasible but may lack detailor strong justification.

o Fair$(1-2$Marks$)$: Solutions are partially feasible or lack clarity, with limited justification or effectiveness.

o Needs Improvement $(0$Marks$)$: Solutions are impractical, ineffective,or not well$-$explained.

II$.$Diagrammatic Representation $(10$Marks$)$

$$Clarity and Accuracy $(5$Marks per diagram$)$

o Excellent $(5$Marks$)$: The diagrams are clear, accurate, and effectively illustrate the crime's execution and key components.

o Good $(3-4$M$$arks$)$: The diagrams are generally clear and accurate but may lack some detail or visual appeal.

o Fair $(1-2$ Marks$)$: Diagrams are challenging to follow, contain inaccuracies, or lack essential elements.

o Needs Improvement $0$Marks$)$: Diagrams s are inaccurate, confusing, or

fail to represent the crime effectively.

$$ Informativeness and Relevance $(5$ Marks per diagram$)$

o Excellent $(5$ Marks$)$: Diagrams provide valuable insights into the crime's mechanics and enhance the overall understanding of the topic.

o Good $(3-4$ Marks$)$: Diagrams are relevant but may not fully capture the complexity or key aspects of the crime.

o Fair $(1-2$ Marks$)$: Diagrams are somewhat relevant but may include extraneous information or lack