Embedded OS Presentation Scoring Guide
CYB-610 Embedded OS Presentation Scoring Guide
Performance Level Ratings
| Meets Expectations
| Performance consistently met expectations in all essential areas of the assignment criteria, at times possibly exceeding expectations, and the quality of work overall was very good. The most critical goals were met. |
| Near Expectations
| Performance did not consistently meet expectations. Performance failed to meet expectations in one or more essential areas of the assignment criteria, one or more of the most critical goals were not met. |
| Below Expectations
| Performance was consistently below expectations in most essential areas of the assignment criteria, reasonable progress toward critical goals was not made. Significant improvement is needed in one or more important areas. |
| Criteria | Below Expectations
| Near Expectations
| Meets Expectations
| Earned |
| The students clearly describes the tools used by hackers to penetrate the specified devices and the effects of each penetration type. | 0 pts – 6 pts | 7 pts – 9 pts | 10 pts | |
| The student provides insight as to how embedded operating system vendors provide defenses against hacking attempts. | 0 pts – 6 pts | 7 pts – 9 pts | 10 pts | |
| The students describes, in steps, at least one strategy used to attack embedded operating systems. | 0 pts – 6 pts | 7 pts – 9 pts | 10 pts | |
| The students describes, in steps, at least one strategy to defend against the chosen attack. | 0 pts – 2 pts | 3 pts – 4 pts | 5 pts | |
| The student clearly explains innovative ideas to secure devices which host the programs. | 0 pts – 2 pts | 3 pts – 4 pts | 5 pts | |
| Industry standard technical writing is correct and utilized throughout. | 0 pts – 6 pts | 7 pts – 9 pts | 10 pts | |
| TOTAL | /50 | |||
| Instructor Feedback
|
© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
