Part III. Review four papers, one for each Chapter from Chapters 2-5 (30 points)
Part III. Review four papers, one for each Chapter from Chapters 2-5 (30 points) (From the book: “The Basics of Digital Forensics: The Primer for Getting Started in Digital Forensics”.
Note: Points will be deducted when reviews (Part III) do not follow the instructions, work is incomplete, and/or are without the adequate research of the topics.
Choose each paper from the References section at the end of each chapter. Each review paper must include the following:
• Bibliography of the paper in APA style (see example below)
• Abstract (summary of the paper in 10 to 12 lines max. in your own word)
• Review (3 or 4 paragraphs) describing your opinion of the article’s quality and your position. Did the writer do sufficient research? Are there elements of the argument that could have been enhanced with more detail or more argumentation? What would a follow-up article contain to be useful to this one? Did you agree with the article? Did it support or change your opinion? If not, then why?
Be sure to include each section and answer each question in the Review section.
Example of paper review:
Kelo, T., & Koskinen, J. (2009). “Modeling Network Security Competence for Certification.” ACM Proceddings SIN’09, 30-38.
This is based on work done in one EU–funded projects (InCert, 2006 – 2010) in International Certificates of Excellence in Selected areas of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). InCert has defined several certificates and created their examination in areas of ICT, and one especially in Network Security. The role of InCert is to promote the certificates, watch the quality, as well as manage the certificate procedures. A two-dimensional model competence of the InCert Network Security Professional (INSP) is described followed by a section on key elements in the methodology and procedure for the INSP certification. After that the experiments to conduct the test and enhance the methodology is presented. The paper concludes with a discussion of the finding, lesson learnt, as well as future possibilities.
Narrative in 3 or 4 paragraphs describing opinion of the article’s quality and your position. Did the writer do sufficient research? Are there elements of the argument that could have been enhanced with more detail or more argumentation? Whatwould a follow-up article contain to be useful to this one? Did you agree with the article? Did it support or change your opinion? If not, then why?
The quality of the paper is good and it is very informative. The INSP certificate is very popular in Europe. The authors explain the cognitive skills needed by a network security profession using a table of two-dimensions consisting of 6 rows and 5 columns. The rows were composed of 6 task areas of a network professional and 5 columns of the competence categories in the INSP exam. In the 30 cells, relevant tasks were given as examples in each cell. The six task areas are: preparation for defense, building countermeasures, daily operations, reacting to incidents, learning and growing, and various communicative skills within all other task areas. The five competence categories in the INSP certification exam are as follows: security threats in networks; using, applying and evaluating the defense arsenal, good practices in network security design, administrative andorganizational defense of network security related issues.
The authors have done sufficient research and presented their work in an easy way to understand it. They also conducted experiments to test and enhance the methodology of the INSP.
The paper is technically correct. It is shown in the cells of the two-dimensional table how to derive some multiple choice questions. For example, in the intersection of the row (prepared) with the column (defense) a question such as: “What type of server,…, firewall, …,fire extinguisher should we choose” is a valid question. A lot of questions that refer to logic and physical security can be asked in the examination. The mapping of this table to derive is technically correct. One drawback of the paper is the lack of emphasis of cryptography in this paper. It is slightly mentioned in some categories. Certainly, the authors could have enhanced this paper by including topics such as biometric, steganography, and cryptography, especially if they are included in the INSP.
The actual security work of a typical network security professional in an enterprise is broadly divided into six task areas. The common duties in all tasks are described; however, the inclusion of subcategories within the tasks can be very useful as a follow-up article.
The experiments with the students show that the exam questions need more validation. The number of students (16) is quite low for true statistical inferences, which make it difficult to agree with the quality of the exam. Nevertheless, the quality of the paper is good and the research work done by the authors is encouraging.