Challenges facing Living Hope Facility related to data security; Develop and implement essential protocols and infrastructure to enable tracking, logging, and recording various activities that may have occurred in the privileged accounts (Colling & York, 2010).

TOPIC: Challenges facing Living Hope Facility related to data security.

To develop and implement essential protocols and infrastructure to enable tracking, logging, and recording various activities that may have occurred in the privileged accounts (Colling & York, 2010).
To closely monitor, manage and control privileged credentials to prevent exploitation (Baker, 1999).
To train the facility employees about best practices in cybersecurity so that they can understand how to manage passwords and keep away from key logger scams, phishing sites, and other malicious activities executed online by the end of the project (Baker, 1999).
To develop strong passwords and special encryption on the facility and employees’ since they are the first line of defence in securing data (Baker, 1999). 5. To curb the risk presented by unpatched devices such as routers, printers and other vulnerable firmware availability to malicious activities

Create Practicum Project Proposal. Your proposal should incorporate the work you have completed in the previous four weeks. It should provide a thorough explanation of the 5 W’s (who, what, when, where, and why) and H (how) in regards to your project:

Why is there a need for the project
What is the project and what do you intend to accomplish with it
Who will be participants in it and who will be impacted by it (stakeholders)
Where will the project take place – Living hope
When will it take place – 7/17/20 – 8/25/20
How will you implement the project and how will the intervention address the need

The aim of the proposal is to secure the buy-in of your project. The proposal should sell itself. The more comprehensive a plan you present in the proposal the greater the odds of buy-in. You will want to use this at your kick-off meeting to gain consensus among all stakeholders and to set the expectations and common objectives for your project.

Your final practicum proposal should contain the following elements:

Title Page
Table of contents
Introduction
Align to organization’s vision and mission statement – SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT for the organization vision and mission. You can use the same mission/value
Background of project’s impetus
Literature review
Gap analysis/needs assessment
Project charter, scope, and objectives, reason for the project, issues and documented needs and expected result
Detail scope of project
Implementation plan: mention email phishing
Define the processes and procedures involved
Work units, tasks/activities
Define project deliverables
Define the metrics that will determine success. How will you know that change is an improvement?
Timeline and schedule: 7/17/20-8/25/20
Budget/Cost-benefit analysis
Identify all resources needed (tangible and intangible)
Risk management plan
Results – Summary outcome, outcome analysis
Discussion: What do the outcomes mean?

Lessons learned: Summary/discussion of approach and processes used, project objectives, issues with resolutions
Interpretation
Recommendations
Methods of Evaluation: Cybersecurity Evaluation Tool (CSET)
Conclusion
Reference Page
Appendices

Feel free to incorporate charts, tables, or graphs depicting any significant data collected into the report, if in the report you are referring to multiple parts of the chart, table, or graph, or if the resource provides a critical visual element that supports your final evaluation. Any charts, tables, or graphs depicting data that is not directly discussed or is only referenced once in your report should be included as an appendix.

FOLLOW THE RUBRIC BELOW

Practicum Portfolio Rubric

Criteria 1	Does Not Meet Expectations 0–34 points	Approaches Expectations 35–44 points	Meets Expectations 45–49 points	Exceeds Expectations 50 points	Points earned	Comments
Professional Portfolio	The portfolio was poorly put together, appeared unprofessional, and omitted many of the required elements.	The portfolio appeared unfinished by being poorly constructed and/or omitting several required elements: CV, Reflection Journals, Project Overview, and Final Report.	The portfolio appeared professional and contained most of the required elements: CV, Reflection Journals, Project Overview, and Final Report.	The portfolio appeared professional and contained all required elements: CV, Reflection Journals, Project Overview, and Final Report.	/50

Criteria 1

Does Not Meet Expectations

0–34 points

Approaches Expectations

35–44 points

Meets Expectations

45–49 points

Exceeds Expectations

50 points

Points earned

Comments

Professional Portfolio

The portfolio was poorly put together, appeared unprofessional, and omitted many of the required elements.

The portfolio appeared unfinished by being poorly constructed and/or omitting several required elements: CV, Reflection Journals, Project Overview, and Final Report.

The portfolio appeared professional and contained most of the required elements: CV, Reflection Journals, Project Overview, and Final Report.

The portfolio appeared professional and contained all required elements: CV, Reflection Journals, Project Overview, and Final Report.

/50

Criteria 2	0–34 points	35–44 points	45–49 points	50 points	Points earned	Comments
Portfolio Overview	The portfolio contained a Portfolio Overview title page, but most of the required elements were missing.	Several required elements were missing from the overview, leaving informational gaps, which left it either too short or, if it met the length requirement, with little substance.	The overview was informative. Most of the required elements were included.	The overview was succinct and informative. All required elements were included.	/50

Criteria 3	0–62 point	63–80 points	81–89 points	90 points	Points earned	Comments
Final Report: Introduction	The nature of the project, the project charter, project scope, unit context to the organization, and project duties.	The nature of the project lacked detail, the project charter was articulated but lacked cohesion, and the scope was either too rudimentary or too ambitious for the practicum. The organizational context for the unit neither clearly established how the project was conducted nor identified the services, programs, and target groups (if any). The duties related to the practicum were defined but not in the context of the entire organization; and they were poorly aligned with the organization’s values and mission statement.	The nature of the practicum project was sufficiently defined, the project charter was focused and clearly articulated, and the scope was reasonably manageable for the practicum. The organizational context for the unit established how the project was conducted and identified the services, programs, and target groups (if any). The duties related to the practicum were identified in context with the entire organization, and the practicum aligned with the organization’s values and mission statement.	The nature of the practicum project was well defined, the project charter was focused and expertly articulated, and the scope was clearly manageable for the practicum. The organizational context for the unit succinctly established how the project was conducted and described the services, programs, and target groups (if any). The duties related to the practicum were clearly defined in context with the entire organization, and the practicum aligned with the organization’s values and mission statement.	/90

Criteria 3

0–62 point

63–80 points

81–89 points

90 points

Points earned

Comments

Final Report: Introduction

The nature of the project, the project charter, project scope, unit context to the organization, and project duties.

The nature of the project lacked detail, the project charter was articulated but lacked cohesion, and the scope was either too rudimentary or too ambitious for the practicum.

The organizational context for the unit neither clearly established how the project was conducted nor identified the services, programs, and target groups (if any).

The duties related to the practicum were defined but not in the context of the entire organization; and they were poorly aligned with the organization’s values and mission statement.

The nature of the practicum project was sufficiently defined, the project charter was focused and clearly articulated, and the scope was reasonably manageable for the practicum.

The organizational context for the unit established how the project was conducted and identified the services, programs, and target groups (if any).

The duties related to the practicum were identified in context with the entire organization, and the practicum aligned with the organization’s values and mission statement.

The nature of the practicum project was well defined, the project charter was focused and expertly articulated, and the scope was clearly manageable for the practicum.

The organizational context for the unit succinctly established how the project was conducted and described the services, programs, and target groups (if any).

The duties related to the practicum were clearly defined in context with the entire organization, and the practicum aligned with the organization’s values and mission statement.

/90

Criteria 4	0–62 point	63–80 points	81–89 points	90 points	Points earned	Comments
Final Report: Project Goals and Objectives	The project’s purpose, significance, degree of urgency, and/or objectives were missing or ill-defined. Evidence of meeting objectives was missing or specious. The outline of problem and methods to address the problem were missing, rudimentary and undeveloped, or unsound. At least one major challenge was identified but the manner of the resolution was inadequately discussed, and the manner of their resolution was reactionary, not appropriate, and/or not thought out well, and may have compromised the project.	The project’s purpose, significance, and degree of urgency were articulated but with few details. The project objectives were broadly defined, inconsistently relevant, or potentially not measurable, and evidence of their completion is somewhat questionable. The problem and methods to address the problem lacked details and were somewhat vague. Major challenges and their manner of the resolution were briefly discussed, but the manner of their resolution was questionable demonstrating poor, inadequate problem-solving skills.	The project’s purpose, significance, and degree of urgency were clearly articulated and logically explained. The project objectives were clearly defined, relevant, and measurable, and evidence of their completion was provided. The problem and methods to address the problem were clearly outlined. Major challenges and their manner of the resolution were sufficiently articulated, and the manner of their resolution was acceptable.	The project’s purpose was expertly articulated, and its significance and degree of urgency were clearly established. The project objectives were expertly defined, highly relevant, and measurable; solid evidence of their completion was provided. The problem was thoroughly outlined and defined, and the methods used to address the problem were comprehensively detailed. Major challenges and the manner of their resolution were clearly delineated and embodied maturity, good judgment, and professionalism.	/90

Criteria 4

0–62 point

63–80 points

81–89 points

90 points

Points earned

Comments

Final Report: Project Goals and Objectives

The project’s purpose, significance, degree of urgency, and/or objectives were missing or ill-defined. Evidence of meeting objectives was missing or specious.

The outline of problem and methods to address the problem were missing, rudimentary and undeveloped, or unsound.

At least one major challenge was identified but the manner of the resolution was inadequately discussed, and the manner of their resolution was reactionary, not appropriate, and/or not thought out well, and may have compromised the project.

The project’s purpose, significance, and degree of urgency were articulated but with few details. The project objectives were broadly defined, inconsistently relevant, or potentially not measurable, and evidence of their completion is somewhat questionable.

The problem and methods to address the problem lacked details and were somewhat vague.

Major challenges and their manner of the resolution were briefly discussed, but the manner of their resolution was questionable demonstrating poor, inadequate problem-solving skills.

The project’s purpose, significance, and degree of urgency were clearly articulated and logically explained. The project objectives were clearly defined, relevant, and measurable, and evidence of their completion was provided.

The problem and methods to address the problem were clearly outlined.

Major challenges and their manner of the resolution were sufficiently articulated, and the manner of their resolution was acceptable.

The project’s purpose was expertly articulated, and its significance and degree of urgency were clearly established. The project objectives were expertly defined, highly relevant, and measurable; solid evidence of their completion was provided.

The problem was thoroughly outlined and defined, and the methods used to address the problem were comprehensively detailed.

Major challenges and the manner of their resolution were clearly delineated and embodied maturity, good judgment, and professionalism.

/90

Criteria 5	0–62 point	63–80 points	81–89 points	90 points	Points earned	Comments
Final Report: Evaluation of Results	The evaluation method(s) and metrics were barely discussed, and their rationale was either missing or flawed. The project’s outcomes or products were missing, poorly defined, or inaccurate. The analysis was missing or misguided, and was not supported by the literature. The evaluation of outcomes was missing or wrong, and conclusions were missing, unreliable, or inaccurate. Recommendations were either missing or were specious.	Method(s) used to evaluate whether project goals and objectives were met were discussed, but the discussion did not sufficiently explain how methods would evaluate this or did not provide support from literature. Some project evaluation metrics were inadequately explained, not appropriate to the project, and/or not supported by the research. The project’s outcomes or products were not discussed in detail, and the analysis of the results was missing, of poor quality, or inaccurate. The evaluation of outcomes was missing or flawed, and drew conclusions that were not completely based on outcomes of the project. The data did not fully support the conclusions. Recommendations did not provide a rationale backed by the literature or the data.	Method(s) used to evaluate whether project goals and objectives were met were adequately delineated, and were for the most part sound, appropriate, and supported by the literature. The project evaluation metrics were adequately explained and were mostly accurate, sound, appropriate to the project, and supported by the research. The project’s outcomes or products were sufficiently explained and contextualized, and the analysis of the results demonstrated good critical thinking skills and a strong command of the subject matter. The outcomes were evaluated to draw conclusions that were supported by the research. Information was synthesized to form recommendations that were for the most part appropriate, and are given some support from the data and research. The rationale for recommendations is adequately appropriate, meaningful, and logically sound.	Method(s) used to evaluate whether project goals and objectives were met were expertly delineated, and were sound, appropriate, and supported by the literature. The project evaluation metrics were thoroughly explained and were accurate, sound, appropriate to the project, and supported by the research. The project’s outcomes or products were explained succinctly and contextualized, and the analysis of the results was thorough, demonstrating high-level critical thinking skills and a strong command of the subject matter. The outcomes were accurately evaluated to draw conclusions that were supported by the research. All information was synthesized to form solid recommendations that were supported by data and the research. The rationale for recommendations was appropriate, meaningful, and logically sound.	/90

Criteria 5

0–62 point

63–80 points

81–89 points

90 points

Points earned

Comments

Final Report: Evaluation of Results

The evaluation method(s) and metrics were barely discussed, and their rationale was either missing or flawed.

The project’s outcomes or products were missing, poorly defined, or inaccurate. The analysis was missing or misguided, and was not supported by the literature. The evaluation of outcomes was missing or wrong, and conclusions were missing, unreliable, or inaccurate.

Recommendations were either missing or were specious.

Method(s) used to evaluate whether project goals and objectives were met were discussed, but the discussion did not sufficiently explain how methods would evaluate this or did not provide support from literature. Some project evaluation metrics were inadequately explained, not appropriate to the project, and/or not supported by the research.

The project’s outcomes or products were not discussed in detail, and the analysis of the results was missing, of poor quality, or inaccurate. The evaluation of outcomes was missing or flawed, and drew conclusions that were not completely based on outcomes of the project. The data did not fully support the conclusions.

Recommendations did not provide a rationale backed by the literature or the data.

Method(s) used to evaluate whether project goals and objectives were met were adequately delineated, and were for the most part sound, appropriate, and supported by the literature. The project evaluation metrics were adequately explained and were mostly accurate, sound, appropriate to the project, and supported by the research.

The project’s outcomes or products were sufficiently explained and contextualized, and the analysis of the results demonstrated good critical thinking skills and a strong command of the subject matter.

The outcomes were evaluated to draw conclusions that were supported by the research.

Information was synthesized to form recommendations that were for the most part appropriate, and are given some support from the data and research.

The rationale for recommendations is adequately appropriate, meaningful, and logically sound.

Method(s) used to evaluate whether project goals and objectives were met were expertly delineated, and were sound, appropriate, and supported by the literature.

The project evaluation metrics were thoroughly explained and were accurate, sound, appropriate to the project, and supported by the research.

The project’s outcomes or products were explained succinctly and contextualized, and the analysis of the results was thorough, demonstrating high-level critical thinking skills and a strong command of the subject matter.

The outcomes were accurately evaluated to draw conclusions that were supported by the research.

All information was synthesized to form solid recommendations that were supported by data and the research. The rationale for recommendations was appropriate, meaningful, and logically sound.

/90

Criteria 6	0–27 points	28–35 points	36–39 points	40 points	Points earned	Comments
Final Report: Information Utilization	The use of paraphrases or quoted sources was inaccurate or inappropriate: · Included too few or no paraphrases or quotations. · Included too many paraphrases or quotations detracting from original content. References were either not included, or they were questionable, biased, and not applicable to final report content.	There was some inconsistent use of paraphrase or quoted sources, but for the most part, they were accurate and appropriate. References lacked industry or academic support, and provided weak application to final report content.	The use of paraphrases and quoted sources were accurate and appropriate. References were supported by industry and academia, and provided relevant and thoughtful application to final report content.	The use of paraphrases and quoted sources were selective, accurate and authoritative. References were supported by industry and academia, and provided sophisticated and compelling application to final report content.	/40

Criteria 6

0–27 points

28–35 points

36–39 points

40 points

Points earned

Comments

Final Report: Information Utilization

The use of paraphrases or quoted sources was inaccurate or inappropriate:

· Included too few or no paraphrases or quotations.

· Included too many paraphrases or quotations detracting from original content.

References were either not included, or they were questionable, biased, and not applicable to final report content.

There was some inconsistent use of paraphrase or quoted sources, but for the most part, they were accurate and appropriate.

References lacked industry or academic support, and provided weak application to final report content.

The use of paraphrases and quoted sources were accurate and appropriate.

References were supported by industry and academia, and provided relevant and thoughtful application to final report content.

The use of paraphrases and quoted sources were selective, accurate and authoritative.

References were supported by industry and academia, and provided sophisticated and compelling application to final report content.

/40

Criteria 7	0–20 points	21–26 points	27–29 points	30 points	Points earned	Comments
Final Report: Written Communication	Writing convention errors were frequent and detracted from the content. Discipline-specific vocabulary was rarely used and not appropriate to the audience. The topic strays in relation to the purpose of the assignment, and the information is not presented in a logical order or sequence.	Writing convention errors were occasional and may have detracted from the content. Discipline-specific vocabulary was sporadically used, but was appropriate to the audience. The topic was consistent throughout in relation to the purpose of the assignment, but information was not consistently presented in a logical order or sequence.	Writing convention errors were rare and did not detract from the content. Discipline-specific vocabulary was frequently used, and was appropriate to the audience. The topic was coherently discussed throughout in relation to the purpose of the assignment and presented information in a logical order or sequence throughout.	Writing conventions were accurately applied and they enhanced the content. The use of discipline-specific vocabulary was exemplary, and sophisticated word choices were appropriate to the audience. The topic was expertly discussed in relation to the purpose of the assignment, and the information was seamlessly presented in a logical order or sequence throughout, including transitions to connect sentences, paragraphs, or sections.	/30

Criteria 7

0–20 points

21–26 points

27–29 points

30 points

Points earned

Comments

Final Report: Written Communication

Writing convention errors were frequent and detracted from the content.

Discipline-specific vocabulary was rarely used and not appropriate to the audience.

The topic strays in relation to the purpose of the assignment, and the information is not presented in a logical order or sequence.

Writing convention errors were occasional and may have detracted from the content.

Discipline-specific vocabulary was sporadically used, but was appropriate to the audience.

The topic was consistent throughout in relation to the purpose of the assignment, but information was not consistently presented in a logical order or sequence.

Writing convention errors were rare and did not detract from the content.

Discipline-specific vocabulary was frequently used, and was appropriate to the audience.

The topic was coherently discussed throughout in relation to the purpose of the assignment and presented information in a logical order or sequence throughout.

Writing conventions were accurately applied and they enhanced the content.

The use of discipline-specific vocabulary was exemplary, and sophisticated word choices were appropriate to the audience.

The topic was expertly discussed in relation to the purpose of the assignment, and the information was seamlessly presented in a logical order or sequence throughout, including transitions to connect sentences, paragraphs, or sections.

/30

Criteria 8	0–20 points	21–26 points	27–29 points	30 points	Points earned	Comments
Final Report: APA Format	APA style and formatting were not followed or applied correctly. Significant APA formatting errors in frequency and severity were present.	APA style and formatting were not applied consistently. Occasional errors of moderate frequency or severity were noticeable.	APA style was consistently applied throughout with minimal minor errors.	APA style and formatting were applied with no errors.	/30

Points earned/possible
/470

Essay Hotline

Welcome to EssayHotline!

Qualified and Professional Writers

Original, Plagiarism free Work

Safe and Secure

Ordering and Tracking

Rush Hour Papers

24/7 Support Staff

Challenges facing Living Hope Facility related to data security; Develop and implement essential protocols and infrastructure to enable tracking, logging, and recording various activities that may have occurred in the privileged accounts (Colling & York, 2010).