Establishing Rolesa. Introduce yourselvesb. Establish rolesi. Financial Sectorii. Law Enforcementiii. The Intelligence Communityiv. Homeland Securityc. Assign roles listed aboved. Create schedulee. Create plan of actionII. Assessing Suspicious Activity (All Team Members)a. Review previous topics from project 1,2, and 3 to assess any suspicious network activity and network vulnerabilitiesi. Network Securityii. Mission Critical systemsiii. Penetration Testingiv. Port Scan Activitiesv. Network Scanning Tools Activitiesvi. Analyze Wireshark FilesIII. The Financial Sectora. Description of the impact the threat has on the financial sectori. Loss of control of systemsii. Loss of data integrity or confidentialityiii. Exfiltration of dataiv. Any other impacts notedb. To be completed by all team membersi. Provide submissions from the Information Sharing Analysis Councilsii. Review Industrial Control Systems (ICS)1. Advise the importance of them to the financial services sectoriii. Identify the risk associated with ICSIV. Law Enforcementa. Complete the group Research assignmenti. Determine tools, techniques, and procedures used to exploit the databaseii. Provide the successful methodsb. To be completed by the Law Enforcement Representativei. Determine what was learned about the methods for exploitationii. Provide research to justify your claimiii. Identify the threats and vulnerabilities of the website application1. Identify possible countermeasures2. Include in the SAR and AARV. The Intelligence Communitya. To be completed by all team membersi. Provide overview of the life cycle of a cyber threatii. Explain different threat vectors that cyber actors useiii. Provide a possible list of nation-state actors that have targeted US financial services industry beforeiv. Review the threat response and recovery resourcev. Provide or propose an analytical method in which you detect threats, identify threats, and perform threat response and recoveryvi. Identify the stage of the cyber threat life cycle where you observe different threat behaviors1. Provide in the SAR and AARb. To be completed by Intelligence Community Representativei. Provide intelligence on the nation-state actor, their cyber tools, techniques and proceduresii. Leverage threat reporting from FireEye, Mandiant, and other organizations that provide intelligence reportsiii. Include social engineering methods used by the nation-state actor and their reasons for attacking US critical infrastructure1. Include in the SAR and AARVI. Homeland Securitya. To be completed by the Homeland Security Representativei. Use the USCERT website and other resources that provide common vulnerability reportingii. Explore the resources for risk mitigation and provide the risk, response, and risk mitigation steps that should be taken for same type of attackb. To be completed by all team membersi. Provide a risk threat matrixii. Provide a current state snapshot of the risk profile of the financial services sector1. Will be a part of the overall risk assessment2. Will be included in the SAR and AAR3. Review and refer to the risk assessment resource to aid you in developing this section of the report.VII. The SAR and AARa. To be completed by all team membersi. Compile your researchii. SAR submitted to the white houseiii. AAR submitted to analyst communityb. SARi. Describe the threatii. The motivations of the threat actoriii. The vulnerabilities that the threat can exploitiv. Current & expected impact on US financial servicesv. Reducing riskvi. Actions taken to defend and prevent against this threat in the futurevii. 15 pages including tables and graphsc. AARi. Includes the intelligence, law enforcement, defense/civilian, private sector and academia communitiesii. System lifecycle methodology1. Rationale for cyber incident2. Critical thinking to solve this cyber incident3. 10-15 pages including tables and graphsProject 4 DeliverablesSAR (14-15 pages)I. Title PageII. AbstractI. Threat Actors (provide definition/overview)a. Tools, Techniques, and Procedures (what is used by threats to attack)b. Attacks (list some social engineering attacks used by threats against US)i. Rationale (provide the reason why they would attack the US)III. Exploitation Methods (provide definition/overview)a. Examples of Exploitations (research to find and summarize findings)b. Vulnerabilities of Web Application (identify vulnerabilities to the web application)i. Threats to Web Application (identify threats to web application)ii. Risks (identify risks created by threats exploiting vulnerabilities)1. Identify Countermeasures (identify remediation activities)IV. Threat Analysis and Exploitation: Ethical Hacking (Provide in depth definition of ethical hacking)a. Tools, Techniques, and Procedures (identify TTPs of ethical hacking)V. Risk Threat Matrix (provide definition/overview)a. Current Security Profile (current security profile of financial sector)i. Vulnerabilities (identify vulnerabilities in the financial sector)ii. Threats (identify threats to the vulnerabilities in the financial sector)VI. Recommendations (identify ways to prevent attacks in the future)VII. Conclusion (sum up the entire SAR)VIII. ReferencesExecutive Presentation (5-8 slides)Summarize the SAR & AAR reportI. Title SlideII. 5-8 slidesIII. Reference SlideAAR (10-15 pages)II. Title PageIII. AbstractIV. Threat Actorsa. Lessons Learned (what was learned from successful attacks by threats against the US)V. Exploitation Methodsa. Lessons Learned (what was learned from exploitation examples in SAR)b. Recommendations (recommend solutions to secure database)VI. Threat Analysis and Exploitation: Ethical Hacking (Provide definition/overview)a. Successful Methods (Identify what went well with ethical hacking)VII. Risk Threat Matrixa. Risk (identify risks to the financial sector)b. Recommendations (provide recommendations to remediate risks to financial sector)VIII. Recommendations (Provide recommendations based on lessons learned in the AAR)IX. Conclusion (Sum up AAR)X. ReferencesReferencesU.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2012). Information security: Guide for conducting risk assessments (Special Publication 800-30). Retrieved August 5, 2016, from http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspe...NIST SP 800-37 Revision 1Chapter 11: A Survey on New Threats and Countermeasures on Emerging Networks by Jacques Saraydayran, Fatiha Benali, and Luc Paffumi from Intrusion Detection SystemsUsing a Prediction Model to Manage Cyber Security Threats by Venkatesh Jaganathan, Priyesh Cherurveettil, and Premapriya Muthu Sivashanmugam from The Scientific World JournalCyber Security Awareness Month - Day 31 - Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery by Johannes B. Ullrich from Internet Storm CenterThe Pragmatic Guide to Network Security Management: The Process from SecurosisInsecure Configuration Management from the Open Web Application Security ProjectWireless Network Security Threats and Mitigation—A Survey by Mohammad Bajwa fromOpen Journal of Business and ManagementError Handling, Auditing and Logging from The Open Web Application Security ProjectGuide to Malware Incident Prevention and Handling for Desktops and Laptopsby Murugiah Souppaya and Karen ScarfoneIntrusion Detection using Security Onion Based on Kill Chain Approach by J. Beatrice Ssowmiyaand S. Prabhakaran from International Journal of Science and Researchhttps://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2013-Top_109.3 Firewalls – an overview from Network SecuritySecuring the Home Energy Management Platform by Søren Aagaard Mikkelsen and Rune Hylsberg Jacobsen from Energy Management of Distributed Generation Systemshttp://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SMA/fisma/assessment-c...http://www.learncisco.net/courses/iins/common-secu...Protecting Your System: Network (Internet) Security from Safeguarding Your TechnologyPeer-to- Peer Enclaves for Improving Network Defense by David W. Archer and Adam Wick from Technology Innovation Management Reviewhttps://www.owasp.org/images/5/57/OWASP_Proactive_...https://lti.umuc.edu/contentadaptor/topics/byid/54...Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment by Murugiah P. Souppaya andKaren A. ScarfonePen Testing from Hacking Wetware https://lti.umuc.edu/contentadaptor/topics/byid/87...Singh, G., Goyal, S., & Agarwal, R. (2015). Intrusion Detection Using Network Monitoring Tools. IUP Journal Of Computer Sciences, 9(4), 46-58Performance Analysis of Cloud Based Penetration Testing Tools by Aruna Pavate and PranavNerurkar from International Journal of Engineering Research and Technologyhttps://umuc.equella.ecollege.com/file/6aa8bfb8-70...Warfield, D. (2012). Critical Infrastructures: IT Security and Threats from Private SectorOwnership. Information Security Journal, 21(3), 127-136. doi:10.1080/19393555.2011.652289Wilshusen, G. C., & Powner, D. A. (2009). CYBERSECURITY: Continued Efforts Are Needed to Protect Information Systems from Evolving Threats. GAO Reports, 1.http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/674300.pdfhttps://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/Media-and-publ...http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/5/4/622/htmQuantitative Metrics and Risk Assessment: The Three Tenets Model of Cybersecurityby Jeff Hughes and George Cybenko from Technology Innovation Management Review

Instructions: This week you are to write a research paper comparing and contrasting the pedagogical and andragogical approaches to instruction and learning. Suppose the senior supervisor or manager of your organization asks you to design a program to increase employee awareness of sexual harassment and train your employees in the appropriate way(s) to deal with harassment complaints. Which principles (from either approach) do you feel might be useful? Support your choices.Reminder:Please ensure that you review the grading rubric (select on checkerboard under grade details above) for this assignment carefully, to ensure that you receive the highest possible grade for your work! Read the instructions in detail before beginning this assignment. Please ask questions if necessary.IMPORTANT!!Submit your work as an MS WORD ATTACHMENT in either a .doc, .docx, or .rtf format.Please support your ideas, arguments, and opinions with independent research, include at least three (3) supporting references or sources (NOT Wikipedia, unknown, undated, or anonymous sources), format your work in proper APA format, include a cover page, abstract, and a minimum of 3 FULL pages of written content; double space all work, include a reference section, and cite all listed references properly in text in accordance with the 7th edition of the APA manual, chapters 6 & 7.Places Abstract on a separate page & clearly summarizes the intent and content of the paper in 150 - 250 words.

Opinion Critiques: Grammar and Formatting and Content. Each student will be responsible for completing a opinion critiques of 3-5 pages each. Formatting guidelines are as follows: double-spaced lines, one-inch margins (i.e., top, bottom, left, and right), and Times New Roman font. A bibliography must be included and follow American Political Science Association Style for citations. Papers will be graded based on grammar, content, and clarity.First, you should present the central focus of the case and its outcome. Make sure to outline what the main arguments are on either side (including the Constitutional challenge). Next critique the majority opinion. Trace the Courts logic and why you agree or disagree with key claims. Using a dissenting opinion may be helpful but use your own insights. ExampleCritique of a Civil Rights Case: Brown v. Board of Education Central Focus of the CaseIn Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the central focus was the determination of whether the segregation of the public schools in the United States is a form of discrimination that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.It was a case that tested the judicial precedent set by the Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, which pronounced that school segregation is constitutional as long as the schools for white and colored children contained equal facilities that promoted their learning (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954). Therefore, it is imperative that a critical analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in the case is performed to determine whether the majority opinion achieved its objective of reversing the separate but equal doctrine that promoted segregation in the South in the early twentieth century. The review of the facts of the case showed that it was a consolidation of different cases on the same issue of racial segregation of public elementary and high school in the District of Columbia, Kansas, Virginia, South Carolina, and Delaware.Also, the fundamental problem with the practices in these five states is that black students were not allowed to attend public schools with a majority white student population in the communities, which were integrated, due to the law that permitted the segregation of students according to their ethnicity (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954). All the plaintiffs, in this case, had petitioned the lower courts to repeal the separation because of its violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and were denied. According to the judges of the four lower courts, the segregation of public facilities is legal if they provide the equal services to blacks and whites, which is consistent with the "separate but equal doctrine" (Ware, 2017).Hence, the Supreme Court Justices were required to determine the doctrine was constitutional or otherwise.Arguments from Both Sides Meanwhile, the analysis of the arguments by the parties to the Court is useful for gaining insights into some of the factors that might have influenced the decision of the courts. The counsels for the plaintiff argued that the separate but equal doctrine was unconstitutional because it violated that Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including when the accommodations were equal in other ways in the communities. Also, NACCP-funded legal team for the plaintiff cited that the case of disproportionate funding of black and whites schools in the five states that were cited in the lawsuit as evidence of the need to reverse the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson that supported segregation of public schools (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896). Aside from the example of overcrowding in black schools and underutilization in white ones in Washington DC, the counsel to the plaintiff argued that black students were expected to travel long distances to attend all African American schools despite living close to white schools that are less populated.In its defense, counsel to the Board of Education argued that the school system in Kansas provided the same resources for public education according to the Schools in Unorganized Counties Law of 1879. According to Delgado, Wing, and Stefancic (2015), the law permitted the Board of Education to provide the same school buildings, textbooks, materials, and teacher salaries in black and white schools to adhere to the separate but equal doctrine.Therefore, the Supreme Court justices needed to decide whether the doctrine was unconstitutional despite its equal educational opportunities for students from all races in the United States.Critique of the Majority Opinion In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court justices held that the segregation of public schools for racial groups is unconstitutional since it violated the rights of ethnic minorities under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The Court stated the use of the separate but equal doctrines to segregate educational institutions have adverse impacts on the intellectual and moral development of black students who might consider themselves as inferior to their white counterparts.Thus, the Court reasoned that the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment permitted it to make segregation illegal despite not having the same authority as Congress.The review of the Court's logic for its decision showed that it was based on non-legal sources, which were the outcomes of two psychological tests that were conducted by Kenneth and Maine Clark. Evans, Cardenas, and Dixson (2017) stated that this evidence showed that the racial segregation of children has a high potential of instilling a sense of inferiority in the students, which is irreversible and a representation of the denial of equal opportunity to achieve intellectual and moral development. It is a position that I support because of how the provision of other equal facilities does not compensate for the damages that are done to the psyche of children who want to attend the same school as their friends from other races and who live in the same community.Therefore, the review of one of the logics that was used for the decision of the Court showed that it was consistent with the goal of public education, which is the intellectual and moral development of students.Furthermore, I agree with the position of the justices to ensure that the Court's decision was unanimous as a deterrent to challenging its decision by the supporters of segregation.As a judgment that overturned a legal precedent and reversed the authorities of the separate but equal doctrine, a dissenting opinion would have enabled the supporters of segregation to perpetuate the practice and increase adverse effects of the policy on racial minority students (Delgado, Wing, & Stefancic, 2015). Also, the decision to agree with the Court's decision was based on the power of the majority to use their political connections and dominance in the states to prevent the implementation of desegregation policies in the country. Similarly, the Court's consideration for the foreign policy implication of its decision, as stated by the Justice Department is another reason for my agreement with the logic behind the unanimity of its judgment. In summary, the Supreme Court needed to end segregation in public education by reversing the separate but equal policy because it was unconstitutional despite the legal precedent that established it, the adverse effects of the policy on the proper development racial minority students, and foreign policy implications of its continued use. ReferencesBrown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954).Delgado, R., Wing, A. K., & Stefancic, J. (2015). The racial double helix: Watson, Crick, and Brown v. Board of Education. In Law Unbound! (pp. 105-112). Routledge.Evans, M. A., Cardenas, N., & Dixson, A. D. (2017). Why race still matters in urban education: Critical race theory and urban education. In Second international handbook of urban education (pp. 787-808). Springer, Cham.Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256 (1896).Ware, L. (2017). Ben Keppel. Brown v. Board and the transformation of American Culture: Education and the South in the age of desegregation.