No More Worries!

image Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay

Paper Formatting

  • Double or single-spaced
  • 1-inch margin
  • 12 Font Arial or Times New Roman
  • 300 words per page

No Lateness!

image Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay

Our Guarantees


  • Free Unlimited revisions
  • Guaranteed Privacy
  • Money Return guarantee
  • Plagiarism Free Writing

The Security Rating Scale”

, “Using the Security Rating Scale” from Ch. 12, “Assessing System Security,” of Network Defense and Countermeasures: Principles and Practices.

Using the “Security Rating Scale”, outlined at the beginning of this chapter, rate the security of your campus, home, or work computer systems and network.

Provide clear reasons for each of your ratings on the scale, as well as recommendations for ways to improve the system’s security.”

Ensure that your document is 2-3 pages and includes charts.

Security rating scale below, feel free to use fictional scenarios in regard to campus, home or work computer systems and networks.

Additional info.

Evaluating the Security Risk in Chapter 1, “Introduction to Network Security,” we provided a method for assigning a numeric value to your system’s security risk based on several factors. In this section we will expand upon that system. Recall that we evaluated three aspects of your system: Attractiveness to attackers Nature of information Level of security The system being evaluated was given a numeric designation between 1 and 10 for each of these factors. The first two are added together, and then the third number (level of security) is subtracted. The lower the number, the more secure your system; the higher the number the greater your risk. The best rating is for a system that: Receives a 1 in attractiveness to hackers (i.e., a system that is virtually unknown, has no political or ideological significance, etc.) Receives a 1 in informational content (i.e., a system that has no confidential or sensitive data on it) Receives a 10 in security (i.e., a system with an extensive layered, proactive security system complete with firewalls, ports blocked, antivirus software, IDS, anti-spyware, appropriate policies, all workstations and servers hardened, etc.)This hypothetical system would get a score of 1 + 1 – 10, or –8. That is the lowest threat score possible. Conversely, the worst rating is for a system that: Receives a 10 in attractiveness (i.e., a well-known system that has a very controversial ideological or political significance) Receives a 10 in informational content (i.e., a system that contains highly sensitive financial records or classified military data) Receives a 1 in security (no firewall, no antivirus, no system hardening, etc.)This system would get a 10 + 10 – 1, or a 19. Such a hypothetical system is, in effect, a disaster waiting to happen. As a systems administrator, you are unlikely to encounter either extreme. Evaluating system attractiveness to hackers is certainly quite subjective. However, evaluating the value of informational content or the level of security can be done with simple metrics. To evaluate the value of the informational content on your systems, you have to consider the impact of such data being made public. What would be the worst-case scenario of that data being made public? Table 12-1 divides data into categories, based on worst-case impact, and gives examples of types of data that fit that specification.

Sample Solution

Begby et al (2006b), Page 323). To begin with, it is never to kill guiltless individuals in wars, upheld by Vittola's most memorable recommendation purposefully. This is broadly acknowledged as 'all individuals have a right not to be killed' and on the off chance that a trooper does, they have disregarded that right and lost their right. This is additionally upheld by "non-soldier resistance" (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which prompts the topic of warrior capability referenced later in the paper. This is validated by the bombarding of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, finishing the Second World War, where millions were eagerly killed, just to get the point of war. Nonetheless, once in a while regular citizens are unintentionally killed through battles to accomplish their objective of harmony and security. This is upheld by Vittola, who infers proportionality again to legitimize activity: 'care should be taken where evil doesn't offset the potential advantages (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).' This is additionally upheld by Frowe who makes sense of it is legitimate to inadvertently kill, at whatever point the warrior has full information on his activities and tries to finish his point, however it would include some significant pitfalls. Be that as it may, this doesn't conceal the reality the accidental actually killed blameless individuals, showing corruption in their activities. In this manner, it relies again upon proportionality as Thomson contends (Frowe (2011), Page 141). This prompts question of what fits the bill to be a soldier, and whether it is legal to kill each other as warriors. Soldiers are individuals who are involved straightforwardly or by implication with the conflict and it is legitimate to kill 'to protect the honest from hurt… rebuff scalawags (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as referenced above non military personnel can't be hurt, showing warriors as the main genuine focuses on, one more state of jus in bello, as 'we may not utilize the sword against the people who have not hurt us (Begby et al (2006

Price Calculator

Single spaced
approx 275 words per page
Total Cost:

12% Discount


  • Research Paper Writing
  • Essay Writing
  • Dissertation Writing
  • Thesis Writing

Why Choose Us


  • Money Return guarantee
  • Guaranteed Privacy
  • Written by Professionals
  • Paper Written from Scratch
  • Timely Deliveries
  • Free Amendments