Cybersecurity Research Paper.

   The Sony Hack case study: conduct further research to engage with the nuances of the case and to enforce your reasoning. Address the following points in your analysis: Identify the threat Sony faced in the 2014 hack and explain their      motives. Explain whether or not you think the aspects of Sony’s sector      made it vulnerable to the threat you have identified. Offer an explanation of the methods of attack the threat actor      employed to breach its cybersecurity and justify your reasoning.  Describe a scenario of what method of      attack at least one other type of threat actor could use in the future,      and why.  Your answer should be between 400 and 500 words. This ongoing project submission will be graded according to the following rubric:     Very poor Poor Satisfactory Very good Exceptional   Adherence to brief  Student has detailed:  – why or why not the organization’s sector makes it vulnerable. – the relevant threats to the organization (between two and three for   their own organization, and the correct threat and a potential threat for   Sony) – associated methods of cyberattack Answer falls within the prescribed word count (400-500 words)  No submission, or student fails to address any element of the brief.   (0) Some key   elements are not addressed. Most information provided is irrelevant.   OR Answer does not fall within the prescribed word count (100 words over   word count). (5.5) Student has adhered to most of the brief. Sufficient information is   provided and is mostly relevant. (7) Student has adhered to almost all elements of the brief. Almost all   information is provided and is relevant. (8.5) Student has fully adhered to the brief. All information provided is   comprehensive and relevant. (10)   Insight into organization’s sector Student has   justified how (or why not) the threat actors relate to the organization’s   sector.  No submission, or student fails to demonstrate even basic   understanding of how the threat actors relate (or do not relate) to the   organization’s sector. (0) Student shows an incomplete understanding of how the threat actors   relate (or do not relate) to the organization’s sector. (5.5)  Student has adequately explained how (or why not) the threat actors   relate to the organization’s sector. However, at least one aspect is either   not completely correct or complete. Student has clearly justified how (or why not) the threat actors   relate to the organization’s sector. (8.5) Student has comprehensively and insightfully justified how (or why   not) the threat actors relate to the organization’s sector. (10)   Insight into threat actors  Student has   demonstrated their understanding by providing substantial justification of   the two to three threat actors they have identified. In the case   of Sony, student has demonstrated their understanding  by providing   substantial justification of the threat actor they identified  in the   2014 hack, as well as one other potential threat actor. No submission, or student fails to demonstrate even basic   understanding of threats to the organization. (0) Student shows an incomplete understanding of threats to the   organization. Their justification of threat actors is incomplete, or lacks   logic or accuracy. (5.5)  Student demonstrates a satisfactory understanding of threats to the   organization. Their justification of threat actors is adequate in its logic   and accuracy. However, at least one aspect is either not completely correct   or complete. (7) Student demonstrates a strong understanding of threats to the   organization. Their justification of threat actors is sound in its logic and   accuracy.  (8.5) Student demonstrates a masterful understanding of threats to the   organization. Their justification of threat actors is accurate, convincing,   and insightful. (10)    Insight into methods of attack Student has demonstrated their understanding by accurately describing   their identified threat actors’ associated methods of cyberattack.   In the case   of Sony, student has demonstrated their understanding  by describing a   justification of the threat actor’s methods of attack in the 2014 hack, as   well as the methods of one other potential threat actor. No submission, or student fails to demonstrate even basic   understanding of methods of attack. (0) Student shows an incomplete understanding of their identified threat   actors’ methods of attack. Their justification of their methods of attack is   incomplete, or lacks logic or accuracy. (5.5)  Student demonstrates a satisfactory understanding of their identified   threat actors’ methods of attack. Their justification of their methods of   attack is adequate in its logic and accuracy. However, at least one aspect is   either not completely correct or complete. (7) Student demonstrates a strong understanding of their identified threat   actors’ methods of attack. Their justification of their methods of attack is   sound in its logic and accuracy. (8.5) Student demonstrates a masterful understanding of their identified threat   actors’ methods of attack. Their justification of threat actors is accurate,   convincing, and insightful. (10)    Organization of writing Answer should be structured clearly and logically. No submission, or complete lack of logical structure. (0) Answer has some logical structure, but not enough to justify a passing   grade. (5.5) Answer is structured fairly well in terms of logic and clarity. (7) Answer is structured very well in terms of logic and clarity. (8.5) Answer is structured exceptionally well in terms of logic and clarity.   (10) Total: 50 points