Due Date: Sunday the 26th of May 2024 at 23:59pm
Introduction:
This assessment requires students to develop a deeper understanding of cyber security threats from both an attacker and defenders’ perspective. In addition to learning further about offensive and defensive security, it also requires students to engage in industry leading frameworks (such as MITRE ATT&CK and the ACSC’s Essential 8.
Students are required to consolidate and develop practical application of learning outcomes, applying skills through case study analysis, design and planning, categorisation, analysis, and evaluation of tools, TTPs, threats and procedures.
Chose ONE of the following assignment topics:
For example, if you choose Device Hardening, you do not need to complete the Attacker & Security Tools topic. ALL topics should be done in a virtual environment, without Internet access and attempted safely. You should not run or complete any tasks on your host device and should not impact other devices outside of your virtual lab. Again, do not use the Internet, real or live malware, live systems or applications on the Internet (Email for example), only within virtual machines. You may use lab virtual machines or build your own to complete the assignment.
If you choose this topic: select one of the following threats and choose 1 attack and 1 security tool:
You will need to research 1 tool attacker’s use (offensive), and 1 security tool used to counter or detect attackers in the area chosen (defensive). Your assignment involves running both tools, evaluating and analysing their use in means to evade or detect threats/detection. That is, how are you going to use these tools? To show how attackers can bypass detection, or how tools can be used to detect/restrict this threat type? Or show how both operate? From this perspective, you should perform a case study of your chose area outlining the threat, table and justify your choice of tools (over others), determine metrics used to determine how effective the usage from your viewpoint is, outline your testing scenario and what MITRE TTPs will be used. Then install, run and demonstrate the use of tools, producing some output or results from both offensive and defensive positions. You should analyse the results (best run the tools once and show what happens when security controls are not in place, the apply the security controls and run again) and evaluate the usage and results from both attacker and defender perspectives, and potential impact, also discussing Essential 8 mitigations. Be sure to discuss threats and countermeasures of these risks.
Key steps:
Lock down a PC which would be connected to the Internet:
There exist many different guides to harden devices. You are required to follow one (of a reputable source such as ASD, NSA) and evaluate its effectiveness. You should perform a case study as to why a device connected to the internet need be hardened, choose a hardening guide, and outline a use case and example scenario (that is, what needs to be locked down given what threats). You should interpret MITRE TTPs and ASD Essential 8 to the controls applied. This device should be locked down following best practices of the guide, but you are free to choose which elements you enact with justification. Choose a guide, evaluate which steps you will do given threats of interest (e.g., what is happening in the wild), identify relevant TTPs and Essential 8 links, deploy your test environment, determine how you will evaluate the hardening steps, use penetration tools and record the output relevant to the steps you are preforming, harden the device, perform the penetration steps again. You can then analyse the penetration attempts and the controls applied. You then are required to evaluate the effectiveness of the guide. You should also discuss Essential 8 controls in your evaluation. Overall, you should justify your guide and attacker tools, analyse and evaluate the hardening strategy and results.
Key steps:
All externally sourced information (i.e. not common knowledge or course material) must be cited. Referencing conventions required for this unit is the IEEE referencing style. See https://ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/IEEE-Reference-Guide.pdf
Helpful information on referencing can be found at https://www.swinburne.edu.au/library/referencing/
Each citation must have a corresponding reference at the back of the report. ALL REFERENCES MUST BE CITED. There is no minimum requirement for the number of references.
Each student should spend at least 30 hours working on the assignment. You are encouraged to keep a log book for your project.
Marks will be allocated depending on the amount of original work submitted. 0 Mark will be given for plagiarised and/or un-attributed work. eForensic examination of the assignment will be carried out to verify its authenticity.
This assignment will be graded as Fail, Pass, Credit, Distinction or High Distinction. Note that minor deductions may be made for small errors in content or style.
Performance Levels/ Criteria | N (0–29) | N (30–49) | P (50–59) | C (60–69) | D (70–79) | HD (80–100) |
Criteria 1: Planning and Justification Scenario, choice of tools, threat/topic choice | There is little to no evidence of understanding the security challenges, tools, threats and where they exist within the cyber security landscape. | Marginal evidence is given, with some basic justification. | Moderate evidence, considers the landscape and relatedness to modern challenges and relevance. | Well-presented justification with examples. Moderate consultation of the landscape considered. Topic, tools, scenarios presented logically. | Significant level of justification has been provided with relevant examples. Significant consultation of the landscape considered through reference. Topic, tools, scenarios presented logically. | Case study provided. High level of justification has been provided with relevant examples. Landscape challenges have been highly consulted through reference, needs outlined and choice of tools, scenarios and topics argued well. Links to TTPs,, metrics have been defined. |
10 Marks | 2 | 3-4 | 5-6 | 6-7 | 7-8 | 8-10 |
Criteria 2: Application and Documentation
Running of tools or solution, analysis software, etc., and the knowledge, security aspects. | Minimal application of tools etc. With little documentation and explanation. Report is of a low standard. | Basic application of tools etc. With basic documentation and explanation. Report is of a basic standard. | Moderate application of tools etc. With moderate documentation and explanation. Report is of a good standard. | Well-presented implementation of tools or analysis. Both attacker and defender knowledge has been outlined. Report is of a moderate standard. | Highly documented implementation of tools or analysis. Attack, defence and impacts have been explained behind tools, analysis. Report is of a high standard. | In-depth documentation and high functionality configured. Leading tools have been chosen, and working. Security functionality usage (Goodware/Malware) is discussed in-depth. Report of is excellent quality. |
Assignment documentation as a whole | ||||||
10 Marks | 2 | 3-4 | 5-6 | 6-7 | 7-8 | 8-10 |
Criteria 3: Analysis | A low-level of analysis is presented. Concepts, impact, | Basic analysis is presented. Concepts, impact, challenges, | Moderate analysis is presented. Concepts, impact, challenges | Well-thought out analysis is presented. Logical in nature, | Highly-thought out analysis is presented. Connections are made | Excellent analysis is presented. Thorough and high evaluation of tools, threats, challenges, usage, |
Understanding the results achieved, analysing the impact/use/practicality/etc. | challenges and considerations are brief, or not given. | and considerations are basic, with some detail. | and considerations are well considered, with good detail. The student has demonstrated moderate knowledge to analyse Criteria 3. | covering both attacker and defender concepts, impact, challenges and considerations. These have been give moderate depth. The student has demonstrated a good level of knowledge to analyse Criteria 3. | across the topic and security landscape. The analysis has been linked to aims. Both attacker and defender concepts, impact, challenges and considerations were presented. These have been given considerate depth. | results is given. The analysis is linked to aims, discussing the results obtained given configurations and usage. The student has demonstrated excellent level of knowledge to analyse Criteria 3. |
The student has demonstrated a high level of knowledge to analyse Criteria 3. | ||||||
10 Marks | 2 | 3-4 | 5-6 | 6-7 | 7-8 | 8-10 |
Criteria 4: Evaluation
Effectively judge/critique/summarise the result, challenge, usage and/or threat/need within the security landscape | Little to no evaluation is given. Project relies more on demonstrating common knowledge of tools, threats, challenges, results. | Simple evaluation is given. Project has more demonstration of common knowledge of tools, threats, challenges, results. However, some simple evaluation is shown. | Evaluation of tools, threats, challenges, results is given. Basic insight is provided and judged. | Moderate evaluation of tools, threats, challenges, usage, results is given. Some depth and contrasting is provided. Some support is given. | Good evaluation of tools, threats, challenges, usage, results is given. Depth is shown, and contrasting and consideration is provided. Moderate support through reference is given. | Both attacker and defender concepts, impact, challenges and considerations are compared and contrasted. These have been given considerate depth while linking TTPs, Essential 8. Connections are made across the topic and security landscape, along with future challenges.
Depth is shown, and contrasting and consideration is provided across previous, current and future factors. Relevant and evaluated support through reference is given. |
10 Marks | 2 | 3-4 | 5-6 | 6-7 | 7-8 | 8-10 |
Submissions should be made through https://swinburne.instructure.com/ (Canvas) before the due date. Reports should be in commonly used PDF document format (.pdf) and should not exceed 15 pages in length. The first page should be a filled-in copy of the cover sheet available on Canvas.
Pages must be numbered starting with the first page AFTER the cover sheet and title page. A table of contents is NOT to be used. The word count is defined at 3,500 words (+- 10%). Appendices and a list of references will not be included in the page count.
Get original papers written according to your instructions and save time for what matters most.