CMP6200/DIG6200

90170-25908000

CMP6200/DIG6200

Individual Undergraduate Project 20232024

A2: Literature Review and Methods

Your Project Titled

381008840470Course:

Student Name:

Student Number:

Supervisor Name:

1000000Course:

Student Name:

Student Number:

Supervisor Name:

Overall Note

Guidance Sections: All guidance text is placed in green boxes like this one. Please ensure that you remove these sections before submitting your final document.

Template Usage: This document serves as a general template designed for common final year project purposes.

Customisation: It is crucial to tailor this template to fit the specific needs of your individual project. Discuss the structure and content with your supervisor to ensure it aligns with your project's unique requirements.

Assessment Criteria: Please refer to the marking criteria outlined in the assessment brief for more detailed information on how your proposal will be evaluated. You do NOT need to include all sections to pass this assessment.

Contents

TOC o "1-3" h z u 1Report Introduction PAGEREF _Toc150349225 h 21.1Aim and Objectives PAGEREF _Toc150349226 h 21.2Literature Search Methodology PAGEREF _Toc150349227 h 22Literature Review PAGEREF _Toc150349228 h 22.1Themes PAGEREF _Toc150349229 h 22.2Review of Literature PAGEREF _Toc150349230 h 32.2.1Review PAGEREF _Toc150349231 h 32.2.2Theory PAGEREF _Toc150349232 h 32.3Summary PAGEREF _Toc150349233 h 33Project Design and Methods PAGEREF _Toc150349234 h 33.1Introduction PAGEREF _Toc150349235 h 43.2Methodology PAGEREF _Toc150349236 h 43.3Limitations and Options PAGEREF _Toc150349237 h 43.4Design Specification/User Requirements PAGEREF _Toc150349238 h 43.5Concept Solution PAGEREF _Toc150349239 h 43.6Testing Strategies PAGEREF _Toc150349240 h 43.7Design and Development PAGEREF _Toc150349241 h 53.8Testing PAGEREF _Toc150349242 h 53.9Summary and Conclusions PAGEREF _Toc150349243 h 54Appendix PAGEREF _Toc150349244 h 54.1Gantt Chart PAGEREF _Toc150349245 h 55References PAGEREF _Toc150349246 h 66Bibliography PAGEREF _Toc150349247 h 6

Report IntroductionHere you will state what the report is about. This is about the literature review and methods, NOT the project as a whole. Do not begin with This project but rather, This report. Provide context, similar to the proposal rationale, in that you will say what you intend to do and why. Provide a clear structure of your report. This should not be very long and should provide a roadmap of what is included in the remainder of the report.

Aim and ObjectivesUpdate your aim and objectives of the project with modifications generated from the feedback as provided by your supervisor. List objectives with modifications if applicable and agreed with your supervisor. Objectives should be SMART and together meet the overall aim of the project. Objectives do not relate to the academic processes of the module, but to the problem or area of investigation.

Literature Search MethodologyProvide an updated list of the search terms used in the literature review, including the various topics and themes your project covers, and library databases used.

Literature ReviewThis is an organised, critical report detailing the various sources of applicable research around relevant topics. Note that this is an indicative example of the report structure that should be used. Refer to the Project Handbook (p. 1820) and video tutorials in weeks 47 for an explanation of content to be included. This should be discussed with your supervisor well in advance, as subject areas may have different approaches that are not in line with the one presented here. The literature review should be approximately 2000 words.

ThemesDiscuss what areas (i.e., themes) need to be explored and why. Typically, there will be around 5 or 6 themes required. You may refer to a mind map in the Appendix showing themes if it helps (but this is not necessary). State the keywords used, which are associated with each theme. Example phrasing: A thematic approach has been undertaken to identify the areas that need to be understood to develop the artefact. From this, a number of keywords for each have been used to obtain information from the literature. List your themes and give example keywords. Note that one of the themes to consider in the literature review is how other researchers approach the topic of evaluation.

Review of LiteratureThis subsection will comprise the main body of the literature review. It will contain a historical overview of the literature relevant to each theme in your project. Relational information about each reference will be presented to provide context for various sources (i.e., brief description of important aspect(s) of each source) and a system of categorisation of topics (i.e., modes of interpreting sources) will be used to separate sources into different classes. This can either be written as one subsection for each theme or as two subsections (i.e., Review and Theory) for each theme as below. If one subsection is used, the information in the Review and Theory sections below must be woven together for each theme discussed. This means you will have one subsection for each theme. This will be determined through discussion with your supervisor.

ReviewShould be who did what and why for each theme. While this is a critique, it is NOT your opinion on research undertaken by other researchers. It must include many citations for each theme (at least 8 references for each theme) and a useful ordering of information is based a timeline in years. This is NOT a description of a paper or article in a list format.

TheoryDetails of how things work. This is very different from the Review, which provides cursory links between research. It should include design methods (e.g., equations, algorithms) that will be used and so on. There is no need to start from basics (e.g., V=IR, syntax error) as the reader will have some knowledge.

SummaryProvide an overview of the topics discussed and information presented. Given this information that you have read, what conclusions may be drawn from this? How does this lead into the choices made going into the following section?

Project Design and MethodsThe design and methods section explains the methods, techniques and overall design to be implemented in the project artefact and reflects the work that you have undertaken since doing the research presented in the literature review (but not in a timeline view). The design and methods section is informed by the literature review in that it is a product of the knowledge gained through the research undertaken to understand what is crucial to the project. Please refer to the Project Handbook (p. 20-22) and video tutorial in Week 9-10 for further information. The design and methods section should be approximately 2000 words.

IntroductionThe introduction should also introduce the reader to how you have structured this section. Many of the below subsections may be combined and presented together in fewer subsections (e.g., combining Limitations and Options, Design Specification, User Requirements, and Concept Solution into a larger all-encompassing section). Again, this will be determined through discussions with your supervisor.

MethodologyThere are many specialist methodologies that exist to conduct projects. Identify the type of methodology used and state why (e.g., Waterfall). This only needs to be a paragraph but shows you understand the approach taken. A flow diagram may be useful to show your methods. Note that this is the way in which you develop something, not the component by component creation of the artefact.

Limitations and OptionsA useful way to obtain your design specification is to consider the methods discussed by the various authors in the literature review. You can then do a comparison of these and identify the best option for you for a particular theme (e.g., based on cost, availability). Provide a description or tables to indicate limitations and options for each theme to be considered.

Design Specification/User Requirements

From your limitations and options section, you can now detail the specification or user requirements (i.e., a list). If this is a research-based project you can now identify the method of obtaining primary results from your chosen testing strategies.

Concept SolutionHaving obtained a specification to design against, you now need to produce a solution. Usually there are several ways that you can approach this so discuss this and decide on the final version. At this stage you should be able to define a block diagram of what it is you will be producing showing each stage that has to be considered.

Testing StrategiesWith any design you will need to consider how you will test it to ensure it meets the requirements of the specification. The spec should really be the benchmark that is being tested against. List the various tests that need to be undertaken and why but not necessarily the how at this stage. Discuss this with your supervisor as they will have different approaches to this section and may ask for a detailed testing method. You will still have to provide this eventually, but it may be in another subsection.

Design and DevelopmentDetails from your block/flow diagram are used in explaining the design of your artefact. You will need to make use of equations/algorithms/CAD where appropriate. Reproducibility is key here; assume that by the end of this section you can give the details to someone else and they can produce your artefact based on the information provided.

TestingIf you have not detailed the testing earlier then now is the time to do it. Consider how many different tests you will do. You cannot do everything so discuss this with your supervisor. Assume that this is like any science testing you were taught at school/college which followed the list of apparatus/method and so on. Obviously here you are describing what is to be done but it shows you have thought it through and know what resources will be needed. Detail each test as a sub-subsection.

Summary and ConclusionsGive a summary of the main points from the design and methods section and explain the next steps. This does not need to be long.

AppendixThe appendix should not include material available from books or datasheets but be useful additional material such as your Gantt chart or tables of results/graphs/drawings/plates that did not go into the main body of the report. Make sure anything in the Appendix is referred to in the main body of the report.

Gantt ChartProvide your Gantt chart here. Ensure that it is readable and does not overrun the page. Change the orientation to vertical if necessary.

ReferencesReferences use Harvard method.

BibliographyBibliography uses Harvard method.

Student Name: Prince Singh

Student Number: 21141433

Module Code/Title: CMP6200 / DIG6200 Individual Undergraduate Project 2023 - 24

Assessment Item: A1: Project Proposal (10%)

Marker Name: Raouf AbozaribaProject Title: Cyber-Attacks and Defense Mechanisms for Improving Security

Feedback: General comments on the quality of the work, its successes and where it could be improved

Background, Aim and Objectives (40%)

The title is quite generic. You need to make it more focused and in a narrower direction. Maybe add the automobile keyword in the title to give it more clarity and relevance.

Background and rationale do not sufficiently address what is required.

The objective: Finding a method to reduce the number of successful phishing attacks by 50% within six months. Is not well supported. Why 50%? Why not more or less? Is there any rationale behind this value?

This objective: Ensuring to train the employees in the organisation against Cyber-attacks within next quarter. Is not realistic. How are you going to measure this in your project?

Adequate project background/rationale discussed.

There is a viable project with an appropriate aim, but objectives do not fully support the stated aim or further refinement required.

Project Planning (20%)

Time allocation for tasks is unrealistic. How can you spend 32 weeks on writing conclusion?

How can you spend 28 weeks on checking the relevance of the implementation? And does it mean to check the relevance of the implementation.

Project plan produced with main activities identified.

Awareness of required resources.

Project review and Literature Search Methodology (30%)

There are unnecessary content such as: A resource is typically something tangible, like food, water, or an item, but

it can also refer to anything we can use for good, such reliable people or abilities. It can also be defined

as the people, places, and things that we can use to further our objectives. How does this paragraph help explain your project proposal. Please ensure every section in your proposal carry some meaning in the context of your proposal and avoid over explaining.

Very good critique of past projects.

Good discussion of how those would benefit your projects.

Very Good understanding of proposed Literature Search Methodology and available databases.

Detailed descriptions of search terms (with rationale) and how to record the results.

Brief examples of initial literature search results.

Academic Writing and Referencing (10%)

No significant shortcoming in structure with all the main elements included.

Style and language generally in accordance with the guidelines although there may be some minor deficiencies.

There is demonstration of ability to cite references correctly.

Feed Forward: How to apply the feedback to future submissions

Areas for development and refinement:

See comments above.

(See next page for detailed marks)

Summary of Marks by Criteria

Element Weighting Mark awarded % Weighted mark %

Background, Aim and Objectives 40% 45 =product(left) # "0.0%" 18.0% PRODUCT(left) # "0.00%"

Project Planning 20% 45 =product(left) # "0.0%" 9.0%

Project review and Literature Search Methodology 30% 65 =product(left) # "0.0%" 19.5%

Academic Writing and Referencing 10% 65 =product(left) # "0.0%" 6.5%

Total Mark (uncapped) =SUM(ABOVE)*100 # "0%" 100% Enter marks to the above cells in range of 0-100 only.

Use the shortcut Ctrl+A, followed by F9.

The total mark will automatically calculate and round up.

Avoid manual input the total mark to prevent decimal marks. SUM(above) # "0" =SUM(ABOVE)*100 # "0%" 53%

Please review the following and document your note in this shared spreadsheet if applicable:

For marks below 40, the 1st supervisor (acting as PT) must provide an engagement and recovery plan.

If you have non-sub students, do the same.

If the marks exceed 90, additional justification is necessary.

It is advisable to avoid using boundary marks (e.g., 39, 49, 59, 69) unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

Note: Please be sure to remove all highlighted text, i.e., the text with a yellow background. When uploading the marks, set the mark flow to Marking completed.

Quality and use of standard English & academic conventions Notes

Spelling and grammar Good Acceptable Poor Academic style Good Acceptable Poor Structure Good Acceptable Poor Referencing Good Acceptable Poor Sources used Good Acceptable Poor If any of the above are highlighted as Poor you should arrange a consultation with a member of staff from the Centre for Academic Success via Success@bcu.ac.uk or, for sources used, with the CEBE Librarian via https://www.bcu.ac.uk/library/services-and-support/book-a-tutorial.

Assessment Criteria

Learning Outcomes to be Assessed:

1.Plan a research-informed project using appropriate literature and/or professional outputs.

Assessment

Criteria

1.

Background, Aim and Objectives (LO1)

2.

Project Planning (LO1)

3.

Project review and Literature Search Methodology (LO1)

4.

Academic writing and Referencing (LO1)

Weighting: 40% 20% 30% 10%

Grading

Criteria

0 29%

F

No suitable Background/rationale and little indication of being aware of project background is provided.

The project needs significant work to make viable and lacks a clear set of objectives. Little or no attempt. No past final year projects are identified.

Inadequate literature search methodology. The report has substantial shortcomings in most or all aspects.

30 39%

E

Limited suitable Background/rationale and little indication of being aware of project background.

The project needs to be developed further to become viable but there is evidence that this could be achieved. Weak project plan that does not provide enough information of what tasks are being undertaken and when but provides a good overview of the project. Past final year projects identified but with limited discussion.

Literature Search Methodology present but with limited details of its implementation. Serious shortcomings but enough indication of ability to suggest some additional work should lead to a pass standard.

Poor citing and referencing.

40 49%

D

Adequate project background/rationale discussed.

There is a viable project with an appropriate aim, but objectives do not fully support the stated aim or further refinement required. Project plan produced with main activities identified.

Awareness of required resources. Past final year projects identified and discussed.

Literature Search Methodology present and is executable.

Some descriptions of available databases and search terms to be used. Includes major elements but there may be omissions or shortcomings.

The text may have significant shortcomings in style, language and/or lack of conciseness.

50 59%

C

Evidence of good discussion of project background/rationale

Appropriate aim and set of objectives.

Objectives required to achieve the aim have been adequately identified. Good project plan taking into account main tasks needed to support methodology.

Subtasks present.

Good awareness of required and available resources.

Risk assessments present. Past final year projects identified and discussed.

Good critique of identified projects.

Good description of proposed Literature Search Methodology.

Good understanding of available databases and their significance.

Good descriptions of search terms and how to record the results. Report generally follows guidelines including all main elements.

There may be some shortcomings in clarity and some minor omissions of content. There is demonstration of ability to cite references correctly.

60 69%

B

Evidence of very good discussion of project background/rationale.

Well expressed aim and objectives.

The scope of the project might be limited with undemanding objectives.

Very good Project plan taking into account main tasks, associated resources and risks.

Good understanding of the project timeline and some details of subtasks present.

Very good awareness of required and available resources.

Good risk assessments. Very good critique of past projects.

Good discussion of how those would benefit your projects.

Very Good understanding of proposed Literature Search Methodology and available databases.

Detailed descriptions of search terms (with rationale) and how to record the results.

Brief examples of initial literature search results. No significant shortcoming in structure with all the main elements included.

Style and language generally in accordance with the guidelines although there may be some minor deficiencies.

There is demonstration of ability to cite references correctly.

70 79%

A

Evidence of excellent discussion of project background/rationale.

There is a good project aim and set of SMART objectives. Excellent project plan taking into account all tasks, associated resources and risks.

Very good understanding of the project timeline with detailed subtasks.

Excellent awareness of required and available resources.

Very good risk assessments. Excellent critique of past projects.

Excellent discussions of how those would benefit/can be applied to your projects.

The choice of the methodology is clearly described and well justified, with awareness of its limitations.

Excellent understanding of available databases and their significance.

Detailed, justified descriptions of search terms (with rationale) and how to record the results.

Good, detailed examples of initial literature search results. Succinct text with style and language in accordance with guidelines and with no significant shortcomings.

Report includes all necessary elements and demonstrates an ability to distil content and cite references correctly.

80 - 89%

A+

Evidence of excellent/outstanding discussion of project background/rationale.

There is an excellent and well considered aim and supporting SMART objectives.

A complete, consistent and comprehensive set of demanding objectives to achieve the stated aim.

Clear and complete project plan taking into account all tasks, associated resources and risks, for the whole project.

Excellent understanding of the project timeline with both detailed subtasks and holistic view of the whole project.

Excellent awareness of required and available resources.

Excellent risk assessments. Excellent critique of past projects and

discussions of how those would benefit/can be applied to your projects.

Clear well defined and documented methodology.

Limitations have been identified with appropriate ways of overcoming them identified.

Excellent understanding of available databases and their significance.

Detailed, justified descriptions of search terms (with rationale) and how to record the results.

Excellent, detailed examples of initial literature search results. Clear academic style and language in accordance with guidelines and with no significant shortcomings.

Report includes all necessary elements correctly cited and referenced.

90 100%

A*

Evidence of outstanding, clear and well-informed discussion of project background/rationale.

A complete, consistent, logical, comprehensive and applicable set of demanding SMART objectives to achieve a challenging aim. Outstanding, comprehensive project plan taking into account all aspects needed to complete the project.

Outstanding understanding of the project timeline with both detailed subtasks and holistic view of the whole project.

Outstanding awareness of required and available resources.

Outstanding risk assessments. Same as above but achieved at outstanding level. Outstanding academic style and language in accordance with guidelines and with no shortcomings.

Report includes all necessary elements and is a demonstration of ability to produce professional quality documentation.

Analysis Eryk K

The analysis will be derived from the code that is successfully generated by chat-gpt.

Being able to create a quantifiable metric for measuring the threat level of the generated code requires the assessment of a few key factors:

Behaviour Analysis

Understanding what the code does, assessing how the code spreads/replicates and determining the potential damage it may cause

Risk Assessment

Evaluation of the potential damage to systems and the affected number of systems.

Vulnerability Exploitation

Assessing how easily the code exploits vulnerabilities in systems or software. Does the code exploit widely used systems or software? Are there existing solutions to the risk posed by the software?

Security Controls

What is the effectiveness of current security controls against this code?

Further Development

How many extra steps are required for the user to achieve code functionality?

What is the required experience level of the user?

Through assessment using these factors we can generate a good understanding of the threat level of our generated code. Paired with a quantifiable metric we can further develop our conclusion for the risk assessment.

Quantifiable Measures

A scoring model could be used as a viable metric for this project. A standardised scoring model such as the CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) can suitably assign severity scores to the programs.

For the programs that already have a CVSS score assigned to them on sites such as cvedetails.com, we can quantify their threat level using this data. For any generated programs without a pre-existing score, one can be developed using the NIST documentation on the CVSS development process.

System Model (Test Bed)