PFA

PFA


Research Project Requirements The course project in 8019UG requires students to demonstrate an in-depth understanding of some important aspect of Computer and Network Security and/or network protocol security. Project accounts for 50% of the final grade for the course, and thus should represent a month or so of research effort. Projects are to be done in group with minimum student 3 and maximum 5. The project must take the form of a research paper, like those found in the published computer and network security literature such as IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S & P), NDSS, USENIX Security, and CCS. (Of course, there is no requirement that your paper be publishable!) The research paper should present your own (novel) research results on a relevant network security problem. Results must be obtained analytically, through simulation, or experimentally through measurement of an existing system or implementation. The paper must be 7-9pages in length, including abstract, figures, tables, and bibliography. Use a reasonable word processing package, a readable font size (10 Times New Roman, and double-column formatting. Papers must be submitted using an Urkund text matching. A lot of background reading may be required to do a good research paper on a given topic and should be reflected in your bibliography. Note, however, that it is NOT sufficient to do just a SURVEY PAPER. Creativity, originality, and your own contribution are also required. This may involve applying previously known approaches to new network data security or scenarios or applying new approaches or analyses to previously studied data or scenarios, or new approaches to new problems entirely. Project Suggestions Security of: •Optical internets •Internet of Things (IoT) •Industrial IoT •Wireless mesh networking •Network security •Network intrusion detection •Grid computing •Electronic commerce •Peer-to-peer (P2P) networking •Hybrid wireless/cellular networks •Sensor networks Course Project Marking Scheme CRITERIA/ GRADE Fail < 50% pass 50-64% credit 65-74% distinction 75-84% high distinction 85% + originality & personal contribution / 15% work does not meet the university’s academic board policy the work is the students own places new results in a credible research context makes a valuable contribution to the topic shows an original understanding which interests the wider engineering community; suggests new directions for further research/design development command of subject / 10% does not link theory to research describes and uses theory to inform research/de sign question; uses set readings to develop topic demonstrates understanding of topic; uses models to inform research/desig n aim compares and contrasts several theories; reveals strengths and weaknesses of complex theoretical models critically analyses competing theoretical models; use the literature review to demonstrate theoretical insights introduction / 5% is absent or is poorly structured or lacks essential elements contains a structure; describes research/de sign project generally makes specific statements about the research/desig n field; introduces key authors; links aim to existing research/desig n work analyses literature to indicate gap in existing research/desig n work; outlines scope of the study and provides some rationale for the research/desig n project provides sound rationale for the research/design project; contextualizes project aim; well structured and sequenced literature review / 10% is too short; lacks detail and analysis; does not cite reports the literature; quotes paraphrases and has a clear structure and groups literature into themes provides a comprehensiv e and analytical examination of critically analyses literature; uses the review to create a important work summarizes appropriatel y; shows a competent grasp of key issues relevant to the research/desig n topic; makes a clear link to own project topic; makes links with research/desig n methodology; demonstrates sound understanding of key issues rationale for the whole thesis; demonstrates a scholarly grasp of the literature; appraises the relevant literature design /methodology / 25% uses inappropriat e research/de sign methods; lacks a structure or argument describes research/de sign methods and materials used so that they could be repeated; methods show a structure and might yield appropriate data draws on published research to provide a rationale for research/desig n methods; links methods and results sections logically derives methods from an analysis of strengths and weaknesses of existing research/desig n work; provides sound rationale for research/desig n project uses innovative methods; discusses methodology limitations results discussion / conclusion / 25% cannot reasonably explain results makes links to results with basic reasoning; states some usefulness of own research substantiates research/desig n claims with references; compares and explains (un) expected results with published results; suggests further work related to topic clearly interprets results; links to a theoretical understanding from the literature; anticipates criticism; identifies limitations to study and how they might be resolved uses results to critically interpret the theory/research supporting the study; explains how results advance the field; reveals an original understanding of own work presentation format & references / 10% writing does not clearly communicat e message writes well; contains sections and subsections and a contents page; correctly employs departmenta l formatting and referencing guides writes in a consistently clear style without grammatical errors writes analytically; brings together all sections into a cohesive document uses the resources of written communication similar to a published research paper. 50%="" pass="" 50-64%="" credit="" 65-74%="" distinction="" 75-84%="" high="" distinction="" 85%="" +="" originality="" &="" personal="" contribution="" 15%="" work="" does="" not="" meet="" the="" university’s="" academic="" board="" policy="" the="" work="" is="" the="" students="" own="" places="" new="" results="" in="" a="" credible="" research="" context="" makes="" a="" valuable="" contribution="" to="" the="" topic="" shows="" an="" original="" understanding="" which="" interests="" the="" wider="" engineering="" community;="" suggests="" new="" directions="" for="" further="" research/design="" development="" command="" of="" subject="" 10%="" does="" not="" link="" theory="" to="" research="" describes="" and="" uses="" theory="" to="" inform="" research/de="" sign="" question;="" uses="" set="" readings="" to="" develop="" topic="" demonstrates="" understanding="" of="" topic;="" uses="" models="" to="" inform="" research/desig="" n="" aim="" compares="" and="" contrasts="" several="" theories;="" reveals="" strengths="" and="" weaknesses="" of="" complex="" theoretical="" models="" critically="" analyses="" competing="" theoretical="" models;="" use="" the="" literature="" review="" to="" demonstrate="" theoretical="" insights="" introduction="" 5%="" is="" absent="" or="" is="" poorly="" structured="" or="" lacks="" essential="" elements="" contains="" a="" structure;="" describes="" research/de="" sign="" project="" generally="" makes="" specific="" statements="" about="" the="" research/desig="" n="" field;="" introduces="" key="" authors;="" links="" aim="" to="" existing="" research/desig="" n="" work="" analyses="" literature="" to="" indicate="" gap="" in="" existing="" research/desig="" n="" work;="" outlines="" scope="" of="" the="" study="" and="" provides="" some="" rationale="" for="" the="" research/desig="" n="" project="" provides="" sound="" rationale="" for="" the="" research/design="" project;="" contextualizes="" project="" aim;="" well="" structured="" and="" sequenced="" literature="" review="" 10%="" is="" too="" short;="" lacks="" detail="" and="" analysis;="" does="" not="" cite="" reports="" the="" literature;="" quotes="" paraphrases="" and="" has="" a="" clear="" structure="" and="" groups="" literature="" into="" themes="" provides="" a="" comprehensiv="" e="" and="" analytical="" examination="" of="" critically="" analyses="" literature;="" uses="" the="" review="" to="" create="" a="" important="" work="" summarizes="" appropriatel="" y;="" shows="" a="" competent="" grasp="" of="" key="" issues="" relevant="" to="" the="" research/desig="" n="" topic;="" makes="" a="" clear="" link="" to="" own="" project="" topic;="" makes="" links="" with="" research/desig="" n="" methodology;="" demonstrates="" sound="" understanding="" of="" key="" issues="" rationale="" for="" the="" whole="" thesis;="" demonstrates="" a="" scholarly="" grasp="" of="" the="" literature;="" appraises="" the="" relevant="" literature="" design="" methodology="" 25%="" uses="" inappropriat="" e="" research/de="" sign="" methods;="" lacks="" a="" structure="" or="" argument="" describes="" research/de="" sign="" methods="" and="" materials="" used="" so="" that="" they="" could="" be="" repeated;="" methods="" show="" a="" structure="" and="" might="" yield="" appropriate="" data="" draws="" on="" published="" research="" to="" provide="" a="" rationale="" for="" research/desig="" n="" methods;="" links="" methods="" and="" results="" sections="" logically="" derives="" methods="" from="" an="" analysis="" of="" strengths="" and="" weaknesses="" of="" existing="" research/desig="" n="" work;="" provides="" sound="" rationale="" for="" research/desig="" n="" project="" uses="" innovative="" methods;="" discusses="" methodology="" limitations="" results="" discussion="" conclusion="" 25%="" cannot="" reasonably="" explain="" results="" makes="" links="" to="" results="" with="" basic="" reasoning;="" states="" some="" usefulness="" of="" own="" research="" substantiates="" research/desig="" n="" claims="" with="" references;="" compares="" and="" explains="" (un)="" expected="" results="" with="" published="" results;="" suggests="" further="" work="" related="" to="" topic="" clearly="" interprets="" results;="" links="" to="" a="" theoretical="" understanding="" from="" the="" literature;="" anticipates="" criticism;="" identifies="" limitations="" to="" study="" and="" how="" they="" might="" be="" resolved="" uses="" results="" to="" critically="" interpret="" the="" theory/research="" supporting="" the="" study;="" explains="" how="" results="" advance="" the="" field;="" reveals="" an="" original="" understanding="" of="" own="" work="" presentation="" format="" &="" references="" 10%="" writing="" does="" not="" clearly="" communicat="" e="" message="" writes="" well;="" contains="" sections="" and="" subsections="" and="" a="" contents="" page;="" correctly="" employs="" departmenta="" l="" formatting="" and="" referencing="" guides="" writes="" in="" a="" consistently="" clear="" style="" without="" grammatical="" errors="" writes="" analytically;="" brings="" together="" all="" sections="" into="" a="" cohesive="" document="" uses="" the="" resources="" of="" written="" communication="" similar="" to="" a="" published="" research="">