Best writers. Best papers. Let professionals take care of your academic papers

Order a similar paper and get 15% discount on your first order with us
Use the following coupon "FIRST15"

Edmg600# 1000 word weeks 1-2 written assignment




Weeks 1-2 Written Assignment (submit here as single MS Word file)

· Part 1 (refer to Week 1 Readings in the Lessons for Week 1)

o Provide an aprox. 1000-word in-depth evaluation of three articles of your choice from the Week 1 Reading List.

§ What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?

§ What is the most and lest persuasive premise, claim or rebuttal?

o Conclude with a research or policy question for further research

o You must utilize literature and cite properly. Use style.APA

· Part 2 

o (Title each response with the text of each question)

o Has U.S. federal government developed a robust legal, regulatory and policy framework to address cyber security challenges? Why? Why not?

o Conclude with a research question or policy question for further research.

o You must utilize APA  (cite, reference, list) required Week 2 Readings.

· Submit both Parts as single Microsoft Word document.

· Name the file “EDMG600Weeks1-2_YourLastName.doc/x” (e.g., EDMG600Week1-2_Pesic.doc/x).

· Upload the document under Weeks1-2 Assignments.

  • Week 1
    Reading and Resources
  • Reading      Assignment
    • Choose and read three articles from       the list bellow:
      • Kello, L. (2013). The meaning of the cyber        revolution: Perils to theory and statecraft. International        Security, Fall 2013.
      • Gartzke, E. (2013). The myth of cyberwar:        Bringing war in cyberspace back down to earth. International        Security, Fall 2013.
      • Arquilla, J. (2012). Cyberwar is already upon us. Foreign        Policy. March/April, 2012.
      • Brown, G. & Poellet, K. (2012). The Customary International        Law of Cyberspace. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 6,        no. 3, pp. 126-145.
      • Caplan, N. (2013). Cyber War: the Challenge to        National Security. Global Security Studies,        Winter 2013, Volume 4, Issue
      • Studentnummer, L. van den Boom (2012). The dilemmas of state        response to cyber attacks. Understanding the phenomena, challenges and        legal response. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam: Paper        Governance of Security and Policing.
      • Crosston, M. D. (2011). World Gone Cyber MAD: How        ‘Mutually Assured Debilitation’ Is the Best Hope for Cyber Deterrence. Strategic        Studies Quarterly, 5, no. 1, pp. 100-116.
      • Goldsmith, J. (2011). Cybersecurity Treaties: A        Skeptical View. A Future Challenges Essay. Hoover        Institution.
      • Mudrinich, E. (2012). Cyber 3.0: the Department of        Defense strategy for operating in cyberspace and the attribution problem.
      • Guinchard, A. (2011). Between Hype and Understatement: Reassessing Cyber        Risks as a Security Strategy. Journal of Strategic        Security Volume 4 Number 2 Summer 2011.
      • Khosla, P. (2009). Information Security for the        Next Century. Carnegie        Mellon CyLab.
      • Hansen, L., & Nissenbaum, H. (2009). Digital disaster, cyber        security, and the Copenhagen School. International        Studies Quarterly, 53(4), pp. 1155-1175.
      • Kusiak, P. (2012). Culture, Identity, and        Information Technology in the 21st Century: Implications for U.S.        National Security. Carlisle        Barracks: U.S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute.
      • Libicki, M. C. (2012). Crisis and Escalation in Cyberspace.        Santa Monica: RAND.
      • Nye, J. (2011). Nuclear lessons for cyber security. Strategic        Studies Quarterly. Winter 2011.
      • Rid T. (2012). Think again: Cyberwar. Foreign        Policy. March/April, 2012.
      • Robinson, N., Gribbon, L., Horvath, V. &        Robertson, K. (2013). Cyber-security threat        characterisation: A rapid comparative analysis. RAND Europe.
      • Schilling, J. R. (2010). Defining Our National Cyberspace Boundaries.        Strategy Research Project. Carlisle Barracks: U.S. Army War College.
      • Schneider, F. B. & Birman, K.B. (2009). The monoculture risk put        into context. IEEE Security & Privacy.
      • Schneider, F. & Mulligan, D. (2011). Doctrine for cybersecurity. Daedalus.        Fall 2011, pp. 70-92.
      • Steptoe Cyberblog (2012). The hackback debate.        Nov. 2, 2012.
      • Ahmad, R. & Yunos, Z (2012). The Application of Mixed Method in Developing a        Cyber Terrorism Framework. Journal of Information        Security, 2012, 3, pp. 209-214.
      • Gourley, B. (2009). Open Source Software and        Cyber Defense. A White Paper provided to the National        Security Council and Homeland Security Council as input to the White        House Review of Communications and Information Infrastructure.
      • Cote, R. (2011). The Strategic Paradox of Social Networks. Strategy        Research Project. Carlisle Barracks: U.S. Army War College.
  • Week 2
    Reading and Resources
  • Week      2 Reading Assignment
    • Required:       Rollings, J. & Henning, A. C. (2009). Comprehensive National       Cybersecurity Initiative: Legal Authorities and Policy Considerations. Congressional       Research Service.
    • Required: Fischer,       E. A. (2012). Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion       of Proposed Revisions. Washington, DC: U.S. Library of       Congress, Congressional Research Service.
    • Required:        The White House (2011).The Comprehensive National       Cybersecurity Initiative. Washington, D.C.
    • Required: The       White House (2011). International Strategy for       Cyberspace: Prosperity, Security, and Openness in a Networked World.       Washington, DC: The White House (please       bepatient when downloading. It may take up to five minutes to download       the document).
    • Required:       Department of Homeland Security (2011). Blueprint for a Secure Cyber       Future.
    • Electronic Frontier Foundation, To the White House Cyber       Security Review Team.
    • The White House (2009). Cyberspace Policy Review.
    • The White House (2011). National Strategy for Trusted       Identities in Cyberspace: Enhancing Online Choice, Efficiency, Security,       and Privacy. Washington, D.C.
    • Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (2003). Interagency Paper on Sound       Practices to Strengthen the Resilience of the U.S. Financial System
    • United States. Government Accountability Office (GAO)       (2011). Information security:       Additional guidance needed to address cloud computing concerns.
    • Internet Security Alliance (2008). The Cyber Security Social       Contract Policy Recommendations for the Obama Administrations and 111th Congress.
    • Owens, W. A., Dam, K. W. & Lin, H. S. (Eds.) (2009). Technology, policy, law, and ethics regarding U.S.       acquisition and use of cyber attack capabilities. National       Research Council. Committee on Offensive Information Warfare. The       National Academies Press.
    • Committee on Deterring Cyberattacks, National Research       Council (2010). Proceedings of a Workshop on Deterring       Cyberattacks: Informing Strategies and Developing Options for U.S. Policy.
    • National Research Council (2009). Beyond ‘Fortress America’: National Security       Controls on Science and Technology in a Globalized World.
    • Brecht, L. A. (2009). National cyber systems       infrastructure security review concept paper. Capital Markets Research.

My last week assignment bellow:

  1. Conclude with a research or policy question for further research.

Is cyberwar upon us and application of mixed method in developing a cyber terrorism framework .



Source link