Can we ensure that Digital Government services are secure?, assignment help

Discussion:

Short Newsletter Item: Privacy Implications of OPEN Data

Write a short “newsletter” article (3 to 5 paragraphs) for non-technical managers to tell them about the potential privacy implications of the U.S. federal government’s OPEN Data initiatives.

Identify and discuss 3 or more specific types of OPEN Data which could impact the privacy of individuals and companies. See http://www.data.gov for examples.

If you need help getting started thinking about privacy and open data, use this Google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=open+data+privacy+implications

Since this article is for a newsletter, you may use an informal but professional tone (address the reader as “you,” use “we” and “our” to refer to the organization’s perspective).

Provide in-text citations and references for 3 or more authoritative sources. Put the reference list at the end of your article.

Timeliness of Initial Posting	On Time	Late	Very Late	No Submission
Timeliness of Briefing Statement or Paper	12 points Posted briefing statement or paper before 11:59 PM ET on Friday.	10 points Posted briefing statement or paper before 11:59 PM ET on Saturday.	5 points Posted briefing statement or paper before 11:59 PM ET on Sunday.	0 points Did not post a briefing statement or paper before 11:59 PM ET on Sunday.
Briefing Statement or Paper	Excellent	Outstanding	Acceptable	Needs Improvement	Needs Significant Improvement	Missing or No Work Submitted
Introduction to Briefing Statement or Paper	10 points Provided an excellent introduction to the deliverable which clearly, concisely, and accurately addressed the topic of the briefing statement or paper. Appropriately paraphrased information from authoritative sources.	8.5 points Provided an outstanding introduction to the deliverable which clearly and accurately addressed the topic of the briefing statement or paper. Appropriately paraphrased information from authoritative sources.	7 points Provided an acceptable introduction to the deliverable which addressed the topic of the briefing statement or paper. Appropriately paraphrased information from authoritative sources.	6 points Provided an introduction to the deliverable but the section lacked some required details. Information from authoritative sources was mentioned.	4 points Attempted to provide an introduction to the deliverable but this section lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources (too many quotations or improper paraphrasing).	0 points Introduction was missing or no work submitted.
Analysis	15 points Provided an excellent analysis of the issues for the required briefing topic. Addressed at least three separate issues and provided appropriate examples for each. Appropriately used and cited information from authoritative sources.	13.5 points Provided an outstanding analysis of the issues for the required briefing topic. Addressed at least two separate issues and provided appropriate examples for each. Appropriately used and cited information from authoritative sources.	12 points Provided an acceptable analysis of the issues for the required briefing topic. Addressed at least one specific issue and provided an appropriate example. Appropriately used and cited information from authoritative sources.	11 points Addressed the required briefing topic but the analysis lacked details or was somewhat disorganized. Appropriately used and cited information from authoritative sources.	8 points Mentioned the required briefing topic but the analysis was very disorganized or off topic. OR, the analysis did not appropriately use information from authoritative sources (too many quotations or improper paraphrasing).	0 points Analysis was missing or no work was submitted.
Summary	10 points Included an excellent summary section for the briefing statement or paper which was on topic, well organized, and covered at least 3 key points. The summary contained at least one full paragraph.	8.5 points Included an outstanding summary paragraph for the briefing statement or paper which was on topic and covered at least 3 key points.	7 points Included a summary paragraph for the briefing statement or paper which was on topic and provided an appropriate closing.	6 points Included a summary paragraph but, this section lacked content or was disorganized.	4 points Included a few summary sentences for the briefing statement or paper.	0 points Did not include a summary for the briefing statement or paper.
Use of Authoritative Sources	5 points Included and properly cited three or more authoritative sources (no errors).	4 points Included and properly cited three or more authoritative sources (minor errors allowable).	3 points Included and cited two or more authoritative sources (minor errors allowable). Reference list entries contain sufficient information to enable the reader to find and retrieve the cited sources.	2 points Included and cited at least one authoritative source (errors allowable in citations or reference entries). Reference list entries contain sufficient information to enable the reader to find and retrieve the cited sources.	1 point Mentioned at least one authoritative source but, the citations and/or reference list entries lacked required information (not sufficient to retrieve the correct resource).	0 points References and citations were missing. Or, no work submitted.
Professionalism	10 points No formatting, grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors. Submitted work shows outstanding organization and the use of color, fonts, titles, headings and sub-headings, etc. is appropriate to the assignment type.	8.5 points Work contains minor errors in formatting, grammar, spelling or punctuation which do not significantly impact professional appearance. Work needs some polishing to improve professional appearance.	7 points Errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation which need attention / editing to improve professional appearance of the work.	6 points Submitted work has numerous errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation. Substantial polishing / editing is required.	4 points Submitted work is difficult to read and/or understand. OR, work has significant errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, punctuation, or word usage which detract from the overall professional appearance of the work.	0 points No submission.
Timeliness of Postings	On Time	Late	Very Late
First Critique for Another Student	2 points Posted a critique of another student’s briefing statement or paper before 11:59 pm ET on Saturday.	1 point Posted a critique of another student’s briefing statement or paper before 11:59 pm ET on Sunday.	0 points Did not post a critique of another student’s briefing statement or paper before 11:59 PM ET on Sunday.
Second Critique for Another Student	2 points Posted a second critique of another student’s briefing statement or paper before 11:59 pm ET on Saturday.	1 point Posted a second critique of another student’s briefing statement or paper before 11:59 pm ET on Sunday.	0 points Did not post a second critique of another student’s briefing statement or paper before 11:59 PM ET on Sunday.
Follow-Up Reply or Discussion Participation	2 points Posted a follow-up reply or discussion posting before 11:59 pm ET on Sunday.	0 points Posted a follow-up reply or discussion posting after 11:59 pm ET on Sunday.	0 points Did not post a follow-up reply in the week’s topic.
Second Follow-Up Reply or Discussion Posting	2 points Posted a second follow-up reply or discussion posting before 11:59 pm ET on Sunday.	0 points Posted a second follow-up reply or discussion posting after 11:59 pm ET on Sunday.	0 points Did not post a second follow-up reply in the week’s topic.
Quality of Discussion Postings	Excellent	Acceptable	Needs Improvement	Low-Quality or No Work Submitted
Critique #1 for Another Student’s Briefing Statement or Paper	10 points Posted an excellent critique for another student’s briefing statement or paper. Critique focused on ways in which the content could be improved and/or better organized. Provided 3 or more specific examples and added value to the discussion.	8.5 points Posted an acceptable critique for another student’s briefing statement or paper. Critique focused on ways in which the content could be improved and/or better organized. Provided at least one specific example and added value to the discussion.	7 points Posted a critique of another student’s briefing statement or paper. Critique provided at least one suggestion for improvement.	0 points Posting was missing or did not add contain a critique of the briefing statement or paper.
Critique #2 for Another Student’s Briefing Statement or Paper	10 points Posted an excellent critique for another student’s briefing statement or paper. Critique focused on ways in which the content could be improved and/or better organized. Provided 3 or more specific examples and added value to the discussion.	8.5 points Posted an acceptable critique for another student’s briefing statement or paper. Critique focused on ways in which the content could be improved and/or better organized. Provided at least one specific example and added value to the discussion.	7 points Posted a critique of a second student’s briefing statement or paper. Critique provided at least one suggestion for improvement.	0 points Posting was missing or did not add contain a critique of the briefing statement or paper.
Follow-up Reply or Comment #1	5 points Posted a follow-up reply or comment which added value to the discussion.	4 points Posted an acceptable follow-up reply or comment which added some value to the discussion.	3 points Posted a follow-up reply or comment but added little value to the discussion.	0 points Posting was missing or did not add value to the discussion.
Follow-up Reply or Comment #2	5 points Posted a follow-up reply or comment which added value to the discussion.	4 points Posted an acceptable follow-up reply or comment which added some value to the discussion.	3 points Posted a follow-up reply or comment but added little value to the discussion.	0 points Posting was missing or did not add value to the discussion.
Overall Score	Excellent 100 or more	Outstanding 85 or more	Acceptable 75 or more	Needs Improvement 65 or more	Needs Significant Improvement

Case Study #2: Can we ensure that Digital Government services are secure?

Case Scenario:

You have been
asked to participate in a panel discussion of security issues affecting digital
government Websites. Each panel member has been asked to select a specific
Website (from the list provided in Table 1) and then research (a) the
information and services that it provides and (b) the security issues which
could impact the delivery of digital government services. Your two to three
page summary of your research will be provided to the panel audience in advance
of the discussion.

Table 1. List of
Approved Digital Government Websites

Base URLs
BENEFITS.GOV	CANCER.GOV	CONSUMERFINANCE.GOV	DATA.GOV
DIGITALGOV.GOV	DISASTERASSISTANCE.GOV	FOODSAFETY.GOV	GIRLSHEALTH.GOV
GRANTS.GOV	HEALTHCARE.GOV	MEDICARE.GOV	READY.GOV
RECREATION.GOV	REGULATIONS.GOV	RESEARCH.GOV	SAFERCAR.GOV
SERVE.GOV	STOPBULLYING.GOV	STOPFAKES.GOV	USA.GOV
USAJOBS.GOV	VOLUNTEER.GOV	WOMENSHEALTH.GOV

Research:

1.
Read / Review the Week 3 readings.

2.
Research three or more attacks which could
compromise the security of a Digital Government Website which uses Web
Applications, a Web Server, and a Database Server. Here are some sources to
get you started:

a.
Web Applications Architectures and Security (in
the Week 3 content module).

b.
Cyber Vandalism — https://www.digitalgov.gov/resources/readiness-recovery-response-social-media-cyber-vandalism-toolkit /

c.
Cybersecurity:
Actions needed to address challenges facing federal systems (GAO 15-573T)
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669810.pdf

d.
Cognitive
Hacking and Digital Government: Digital Identity http://www.ists.dartmouth.edu/library/78.pdf

e.
US-Cert Publications (See Technical Reports section)
https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications#reports

3.
Review the Website for a digital government
service (select one of the Websites listed in Table 1). What types of information
or services are available via your selected Website? What population does this
Website serve (who is the intended audience)?

4.
As part of your Digital Government Website
review, determine the types and sensitivity of information collected, displayed,
processed, and stored by the Web applications which implement the Digital
Government service.

a.
See http://www.digitalgov.gov/resources/checklist-of-requirements-for-federal-digital-services /
for general security and privacy requirements.

b.
See FIPS 199 for additional guidance on
determining the sensitivity level of a Federal IT system. (See the section on public websites.)

5.
Using FIPS 200 and NIST SP 800-53, research the general
types of security controls which are required for the IT systems hosting the Digital
Government service that you reviewed.

6. Find
three or more additional sources which provide information about best practice
recommendations for ensuring the security of the Web Applications used to
deliver Digital Government information and services. These additional sources
can include analyst reports and/or news stories about recent attacks / threats,
data breaches, cybercrime, cyber terrorism, etc. which impacted the security of
digital government services.

Write:

Write a two to three page
summary of your research. At a minimum, your summary must include the
following:

1. An
introduction or overview of digital
government which provides definitions and addresses the laws, regulations,
and policies which require that federal agencies provide information and
services via the Web. This introduction should be suitable for an executive
audience.

2. An
overview of the information and services provided by your selected digital
government Website. Answer the following
questions:

a. What
types of information or services are available via your selected Website?

b. What
population does this Website serve (who is the intended audience)?

c. What
sensitivity level which should be assigned to the Website (use FIPS 199
criteria).

d. What
security issues were observed during your review?

3. A
separate section which addresses the architectures and security issues inherent
in the use of Web applications when used to deliver the services provided by
your selected digital government Website.

4. A
separate section which includes recommendations for best practices for ensuring Web application security during the design,
implementation, and operation of digital government websites. Include five or
more best practice recommendations in your discussion.

Your white
paper should use standard terms and definitions for cybersecurity. The following
sources are recommended:

·
ISACA Glossary http://www.isaca.org/pages/glossary.aspx

·
Guidelines
on Security and Privacy in Public Cloud Computing http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-144.pdf

Submit For Grading

Submit your case study in MS
Word format (.docx or .doc file) using the Case Study #2 Assignment in your
assignment folder. (Attach the file.)

Formatting Instructions

Use standard APA formatting for
the MS Word document that you submit to your assignment folder. Formatting
requirements and examples are found under Course Resources > APA Resources.

Additional Information

1. You
are expected to write grammatically correct English in every assignment that
you submit for grading. Do not turn in any work without (a) using spell check,
(b) using grammar check, (c) verifying that your punctuation is correct and (d)
reviewing your work for correct word usage and correctly structured sentences
and paragraphs. These items are graded under Professionalism and constitute 20%
of the assignment grade.

2. You
are expected to credit your sources using in-text citations and reference list
entries. Both your citations and your reference list entries must comply with
APA 6th edition Style requirements. Failure to credit your sources will result
in penalties as provided for under the university’s Academic Integrity policy.

Criteria	Excellent	Outstanding	Acceptable	Needs Improvement	Needs Significant Improvement	Missing or Unacceptable
Introduction or Overview for the Case Study	20 points Provided an excellent introduction or overview of digital government which provided definitions and addressed the laws, regulations, and policies which require that federal agencies provide information and services via the Web. The overview appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.	18 points Provided an outstanding introduction or overview of digital government which provided definitions and addressed the laws, regulations, and policies which require that federal agencies provide information and services via the Web. The overview appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.	16 points Provided an overview of digital government discussed the laws and policies which require that federal agencies provide information and services via the Web. The overview appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.	14 points Provided an overview of digital government but, the section lacked important details about the case. Information from authoritative sources was cited and used in the overview.	10 points Attempted to provide an introduction to the case study but this section lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources.	0 points The introduction and/or overview sections of the paper were off topic.
Review of a Digital Government Website	20 points Provided an excellent overview of the information and services provided by the selected digital government Website. Provided full, complete, and concise answers to the following questions: a. What types of information or services are available via the selected Website? b. What population does this Website serve (who is the intended audience)? c. What sensitivity level which should be assigned to the Website (use FIPS 199 criteria)? d. What security issues were observed during the review? Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.	18 points Provided an outstanding overview of the information and services provided by the selected digital government Website. Provided answers for the following questions: a. What types of information or services are available via the selected Website? b. What population does this Website serve (who is the intended audience)? c. What sensitivity level which should be assigned to the Website (use FIPS 199 criteria)? d. What security issues were observed during the review? Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.	16 points Provided an overview of the information and services provided by the selected digital government Website. Answered the following questions: a. What types of information or services are available via the selected Website? b. What population does this Website serve (who is the intended audience)? c. What security issues were observed during the review? Appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.	14 points Provided a review of a digital government website, but the discussion lacked important details.Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.	9 points Provided a discussion of the information and services provided by digital government websites. The discussionlacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources.	0 points This section was missing, off topic, or failed to provide information about a digital government website.
Web Application Architectures and Security Issues	15 points Provided an excellent discussion of Web application architectures and common / frequent security issues inherent in the use of Web applications in the context of digital government Websites. Discussion included 5 or more examples of security issues.Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.	14 points Provided an outstanding discussion of Web application architectures and common / frequent security issues inherent in the use of Web applications in the context of digital government Websites. Discussion included 3 or more examples of security issues.Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.	13 points Provided a description of Web application architectures. Discussed common / frequent security issues inherent in the use of Web applications in the context of digital government Websites. Discussion included at least one example of a relevant security issue.Appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.	11 points Discussed web application architecture and security issues.Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.	4 points Mentioned web application architectures and security issues. Discussion was substantially lacking in content and/or organization OR was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources.	0 points Section was missing or off topic.
Best Practices and Recommendations for Ensuring Security of Digital Government Websites	15 points Provided an excellentdiscussion of best practices for ensuring Web application security during the design, implementation, and operation of digital government websites. Included 5 or more best practices (with recommendations) which could be implemented to improve the security of digital government websites. Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.	14 points Provided an outstandingdiscussion of best practices for ensuring Web application security during the design, implementation, and operation of digital government websites. Included 3 or more best practices (with recommendations) which could be implemented to improve the security of digital government websites. Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.	13 points Provided a discussion of best practices for ensuring Web application security for digital government website. Included at least one best practice example for improving the security of digital government websites. Appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.	11 points Discussion provided some information about best practices and included recommendations for improving security for digital government websites. Mentioned information obtained from authoritative sources.	4 points Included recommendations for improving security in the context of digital government websites but the discussion lacked detail and/or was not supported by information from authoritative sources.	0 points This section was missing, off topic, or failed to address best practices and/or recommendations.
Addressed security issues using standard cybersecurity terminology	5 points Demonstrated excellence in the integration of standard cybersecurity terminology into the case study.	4 points Provided an outstanding integration of standard cybersecurity terminology into the case study.	3 points Integrated standard cybersecurity terminology into the into the case study	2 points Used standard cybersecurity terminology but this usage was not well integrated with the discussion.	1 point Misused standard cybersecurity terminology.	0 points Did not integrate standard cybersecurity terminology into the discussion.
APA Formatting for Citations and Reference List	5 points Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. Reference list entries and in-text citations are correctly formatted using the appropriate APA style for each type of resource.	4 points Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. One or two minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.	3 points Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. No more than 3 minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.	2 points Work has no more than three paragraphs with omissions of citations crediting sources for facts and information. Work contains a reference list containing entries for cited resources. Work contains no more than 5 minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.	1 point Work attempts to credit sources but demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand and apply the APA formatting standard as defined in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6^th ed.).	0 points Reference list is missing. Work demonstrates an overall failure to incorporate and/or credit authoritative sources for information used in the paper.
Professionalism Part I: Organization & Appearance	5 points Submitted work shows outstanding organization and the use of color, fonts, titles, headings and sub-headings, etc. is appropriate to the assignment type.	4 points Submitted work has minor style or formatting flaws but still presents a professional appearance. Submitted work is well organized and appropriately uses color, fonts, and section headings (per the assignment’s directions).	3 points Organization and/or appearance of submitted work could be improved through better use of fonts, color, titles, headings, etc. OR Submitted work has multiple style or formatting errors. Professional appearance could be improved.	2 points Submitted work has multiple style or formatting errors. Organization and professional appearance need substantial improvement.	1 point Submitted work meets minimum requirements but has major style and formatting errors. Work is disorganized and needs to be rewritten for readability and professional appearance.	0 points Submitted work is poorly organized and formatted. Writing and presentation are lacking in professional style and appearance. Work does not reflect college level writing skills.
Professionalism Part II: Execution	15 points No formatting, grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors.	14 points Work contains minor errors in formatting, grammar, spelling or punctuation which do not significantly impact professional appearance.	13 points Errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation which detract from professional appearance of the submitted work.	11 points Submitted work has numerous errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation. Work is unprofessional in appearance.	4 points Submitted work is difficult to read / understand and has significant errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, punctuation, or word usage.	0 points Submitted work is poorly executed OR does not reflect college level work.
Overall Score	Excellent 90 or more	Outstanding 80 or more	Acceptable 70 or more	Needs Improvement 56 or more	Needs Significant Improvement 36 or more	Missing or Unacceptable 0 or more