Rubric Name: Paper #2: Mobile App Security Assessment + Strategy (Rubric)

Rubric Name: Paper #2: Mobile App Security Assessment + Strategy (Rubric)

Rubric Name: Paper #2: Mobile App Security Assessment + Strategy (Rubric)

Criteria Excellent Outstanding Acceptable Needs Improvement Needs Significant Improvement Missing or Unacceptable
Introduction or Overview for Mobile Apps 10 points

Provided an excellent overview of mobile apps for digital government. Discussion included 5 or more examples of mobile apps which have been recognized as being innovative or “best of category” for delivering government information and services to mobile devices. The overview appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

8.5 points

Provided an outstanding overview of mobile apps for digital government. Discussion included 3 or more examples of mobile apps which have been recognized as being innovative or “best of category” for delivering government information and services to mobile devices. The overview appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

7 points

Provided an overview of mobile apps for digital government. Discussed the purpose of mobile apps from the federal government.  Included at least one example of a mobile app that is available from the federal government’s app store. The overview appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.

6 points

Provided an overview but the section lacked important details about federal government mobile apps. Information from authoritative sources was cited and used in the overview.

4 points

Attempted to provide an introduction to the paper but this section lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources.

0 points

The introduction and/or overview sections of the paper were off topic.

Federal Perspective on Mobile App Security 20 points

Provided an excellent overview of the federal government’s requirements and recommendations for mobile app security architectures and the associated design recommendations. Explanations were written for non-technical managers and included at least three useful diagrams or pictures with appropriate in-text citations for the source (appended to the figure caption). Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

18 points

Provided an outstanding overview of the federal government’s requirements and recommendations for mobile app security architectures and the associated design recommendations. Explanations were written for non-technical managers and included at least two useful diagrams or pictures with appropriate in-text citations for the source (appended to the figure caption). Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

16 points

Provided an overview of the federal government’s requirements and recommendations for mobile app security architectures and the associated design recommendations. Included at one or more useful diagrams or pictures with appropriate in-text citations for the source (appended to the figure caption). Appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.

14 points

Provided a discussion of the federal government’s requirements or recommendations for mobil app security.Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.

10 points

Provided a discussion of mobile app security in the context of the federal government. The discussion lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources.

0 points

This section was missing, off topic, or failed to provide information about mobile app security in the context of the federal government.

Industry Perspective on Mobile App Security 15 points

Provided an excellent overview of industry recommendations for mobile app security architectures and the associated design recommendations. Explanations were written for non-technical managers and included at least three useful diagrams or pictures with appropriate in-text citations for the source (appended to the figure caption). Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

12 points

Provided an outstanding overview of industry recommendations for mobile app security architectures and the associated design recommendations. Explanations were written for non-technical managers and included at least two useful diagrams or pictures with appropriate in-text citations for the source (appended to the figure caption). Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

11 points

Provided an overview of industry recommendations for mobile app security architectures and the associated design recommendations. Included at one or more useful diagrams or pictures with appropriate in-text citations for the source (appended to the figure caption). Appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.

10 points

Provided a discussion of industry recommendations for mobil app security.Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.

6 points

Provided a discussion of mobile app security from industry’s perspective. The discussionlacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources.

0 points

This section was missing, off topic, or failed to provide information about mobile app security from the industry perspective.

Best Practice Recommendations for Mobile App Security 15 points

Provided an excellent discussion of best practice recommendations for ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, availability, authenticity, and non-repudiation for Mobile Applications. Included 5 or more specific recommendations. Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

14 points

Provided an outstanding discussion of best practice recommendations for ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, availability, authenticity, and non-repudiation for Mobile Applications. Included 4 or more specific recommendations. Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

13 points

Provided a discussion of best practice recommendations for ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, availability, authenticity, and non-repudiation for Mobile Applications. Included 3 or more specific recommendations. Appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.

11 points

Discussion provided some information about best practices for ensuring securityfor Mobile Applications. Mentioned information obtained from authoritative sources.

4 points

Discussion provided some information about best practices for ensuring securityfor Mobile Applications, but the lacked detail and/or was not supported by information from authoritative sources.

0 points

Did not address best practices for security for Mobile Applications.

Summary of Research and Recommendations 10 points

Provided an excellent summary of the research and recommendations for this deliverable. Summary was clear, concise, and accurate. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.

8.5 points

Provided an outstanding summary of the research and recommendations for this deliverable. Summary was clear and accurate. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.

7 points

Provided an acceptable summary of the research and recommendations for this deliverable. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.

6 points

Provided a summary section but, this section was disorganized or lacked relevant details. Mentioned information from authoritative sources.

4 points

Attempted to provide a summary for this deliverable. But, the summary was not relevant to the deliverable. OR, this section was not well supported by information from authoritative sources.

0 points

The summary was missing.

Professionalism: Addressed security issues using standard cybersecurity terminology 5 points

Demonstrated excellence in the integration of standard cybersecurity terminology into the case study.

4 points

Provided an outstanding integration of standard cybersecurity terminology into the case study.

3 points

Integrated standard cybersecurity terminology into the into the case study

2 points

Used standard cybersecurity terminology but this usage was not well integrated with the discussion.

1 point

Misused standard cybersecurity terminology.

0 points

Did not integrate standard cybersecurity terminology into the discussion.

Professionalism: APA Formatting for Citations and Reference List 5 points

Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. Reference list entries and in-text citations are correctly formatted using the appropriate APA style for each type of resource.

4 points

Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. One or two minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.

3 points

Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. No more than 3 minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.

2 points

Work has no more than three paragraphs with omissions of citations crediting sources for facts and information. Work contains a reference list containing entries for cited resources. Work contains no more than 5 minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.

1 point

Work attempts to credit sources but demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand and apply the APA formatting standard as defined in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).

0 points

Reference list is missing. Work demonstrates an overall failure to incorporate and/or credit authoritative sources for information used in the paper.

Professionalism: Organization & Appearance 5 points

Submitted work shows outstanding organization and the use of color, fonts, titles, headings and sub-headings, etc. is appropriate to the assignment type.

4 points

Submitted work has minor style or formatting flaws but still presents a professional appearance. Submitted work is well organized and appropriately uses color, fonts, and section headings (per the assignment’s directions).

3 points

Organization and/or appearance of submitted work could be improved through better use of fonts, color, titles, headings, etc. OR Submitted work has multiple style or formatting errors. Professional appearance could be improved.

2 points

Submitted work has multiple style or formatting errors. Organization and professional appearance need substantial improvement.

1 point

Submitted work meets minimum requirements but has major style and formatting errors. Work is disorganized and needs to be rewritten for readability and professional appearance.

0 points

Submitted work is poorly organized and formatted. Writing and presentation are lacking in professional style and appearance. Work does not reflect college level writing skills.

Professionalism: Execution 15 points

No formatting, grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors.

14 points

Work contains minor errors in formatting, grammar, spelling or punctuation which do not significantly impact professional appearance.

13 points

Errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation which detract from professional appearance of the submitted work.

11 points

Submitted work has numerous errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation. Work is unprofessional in appearance.


Comments are closed.