Requirements
You have been recruited as an IT Administrator in the IT department and tasked with analysing, designing, configuring, and simulating the new network for the Brisbane and Sydney branches.
There are two parts of the requirements for this assignment, network design and network simulation.
a) Network Design Tasks [30 marks]
Task 1
Develop a logical design of the Sydney network branch using the building-block network design process. Consider the anticipated expansion of NDC. You need to consider the following elements for the logical design:
• Network architecture components.
• Application systems.
• Network users.
• Categorizing network needs
Task 2
Design the network’s physical architecture based on the logical architecture completed in Task 1. Note that you are not required to alternative design. Regarding the physical construction, you need to consider the following:
• Designing client and servers
• Designing circuits
• Network design tools
Note: The following drawing tools can be used to create both logical and physical layouts. • Concept Draw or
• SmartDraw
• Lucidchart
• Cisco Packet Tracer or any other network design software to draw the layout of logical and physical network designs.
Task3
Briefly describe how you will minimise interference from Wi-Fi access points (APs) on separate floors.
b) Simulation [70 marks]
You have been asked to use the Packet Tracer, as shown in Figure 1, for the simulation task. Simulate and test the configuration using the ping command for both Local delivery (devices within the same network) and remote delivery (devices within separate networks, such as Brisbane and Sydney).
You can use the Lecture notes or VLSM to subnet the networks.
Prepare a report to provide the details configuration for the network for ABC company.
In this task, you will complete the required information using the IP network diagram shown in Figure 1. To optimise your grade in this section, address the following points:
• List all assumptions and their explanation.
• Display each calculation for the number of subnets, IP addresses, valid hosts, gateways, and subnet mask for Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Table 1. Sydney branch Network (Net-C)
Allocated Subnet address and Subnet Mask
Network address
Default Gateway address
Valid host address range
Broadcast address
Table 2. Brisbane branch Network
Allocated Subnet address and Subnet Mask
Network address
Default Gateway address
Valid host address range
Broadcast address
Table 3. Network between Sydney to ISP
Allocated Subnet address and Subnet Mask
Network address
Valid host address range
Broadcast address
Table 4. Network between Brisbane and ISP
Allocated Subnet address and Subnet Mask
Network address
Valid host address range
Broadcast address
Place configuration of each device into a table like the one below. (40 Marks)
Sydney
(Copy and paste the device configuration, DO NOT use screenshot from Packet Tracer)
S1: enable.
S1: configure terminal.
S1: . . .
Assessment submission
Your report must include a cover page that includes the student’s name and student ID. You need to submit the design document as outlined above with a working Packet Tracer file. DO NOT ZIP THE SUBMISSION FILES.
For successful completion of this assessment, you are required to study the material provided (lecture slides, tutorials, and extra reading materials), engage in the unit’s activities, and in the discussion forums. The prescribed textbook is the main reference along with the recommended reading material. Students are expected to discuss their work with the lecturer and to seek support. In completing this assessment successfully, you will be able to develop networking skills including design, configuration and testing of a computer network using a simulator. This assessment helps in achieving ULO-2.
Marking Criteria and Rubric: The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 40% of the total unit mark.
Marking
Criteria for
Task-B
Not satisfactory
(0-49%) of the
criterion mark)
Satisfactory
(50-64%) of the criterion mark
Good
(65-74%) of the criterion mark
Very Good
(75-84%) of the criterion mark
Excellent
(85-100%) of the criterion mark
Logical design
(need analysis)
(10 marks)
The design does not meet minimum
requirements.
The design lacks in multiple critical areas and requires
significant
improvement.
The design meets some objectives but needs improvement in certain areas.
The design meets most objectives
effectively.
The design exceeds expectations in all areas.
Physical Design (technology design) (10 marks)
The physical design does not meet minimum requirements.
The physical design lacks in multiple
critical areas and
requires significant improvement.
The physical design meets some
objectives but needs improvement in
certain areas.
The physical design meets most objectives effectively.
The physical design exceeds expectations in all areas.
Minimising the
interference from Wi-Fi access points (10 marks)
The proposal does not effectively address
interference challenges and lacks an
understanding of the topic.
The proposal lacks a comprehensive
understanding of
interference or
provides incomplete or ineffective
solutions.
The proposal partially addresses
interference issues but lacks depth or innovation
The proposal
effectively addresses most interference challenges with well thought-out
strategies.
The proposal
demonstrates an
exceptional
understanding of
interference factors and provides
comprehensive,
innovative solutions.
Subnet allocations, IP addresses, valid hosts, gateways subnet mask
(20 marks)
Lack of evidence of
understanding of IP configuration for NET A, B and C including the interfaces for RA, RB and RC with many errors.
Evidence of a basic understanding of IP configuration for NET A, B and C.
Good IP configuration for NET A, B and C including the
interfaces for RA, RB and RC with some errors.
very well IP
configuration for NET A, B and C including the interfaces for RA, RB and RC.
Excellent IP
configuration for NET A, B and C including the interfaces for RA, RB and RC.
Routers
Configurations
(25 marks)
Lack of evidence of
understanding of
Configure router RA interfaces with many errors.
Evidence of a basic understanding of
Configure router RA interfaces
Good Configure router RA interfaces with some errors.
Very well Configure router RA interfaces
Excellent Configure router RA interfaces
Routing
configuration
(15 marks)
Lack of evidence of
understanding of routing configuration with no connections between hosts
Basic understanding of routing configuration with errors in the routing configuration and no connection between hosts
Well routing
configuration with correct routing
configuration and connection between the hosts
Very weak routing configuration with simple demonstration of configuration, and full network
connection.
Excellent explanation and understudying of routing protocols and configuration with
excellent
demonstration of configuration, testing and full network
connection.
Verifications
(10 marks)
No testing results were shown or with many errors.
(Pinging the local area
Some connectivity testing results showed some errors.
(Pinging is only
Full connectivity
testing results showed some errors.
(Pinging is only
Full connectivity
testing results are shown with minor errors.
Full connectivity
testing results are shown with no errors. (Pinging the local area
network and remote network is not
successful)
successful with local area network packet drops and not remote networks)
successful with local area network, not remote network)
(Pinging the local area network is successful and the remote
network is successful with packet drops)
network and remote network is successful)
Assessment 4: System vulnerabilities and mitigation
Due date:
Week 12
Group/individual:
Group
Word count / Time provided:
3000
Weighting:
30%
Unit Learning Outcomes:
ULO-3, ULO-4
Assessment Details:
Your team has recently been hired by a car industry company that employs various types of robotic systems for tasks ranging from assembly, welding, and painting to inspection. Internet of Things (IoT) devices are utilized to control the robotic systems both locally and remotely.
In recent years, there has been a growing focus on the risks associated with the use of simple IoT devices in services that have access to sensitive information or critical controls. To enhance the resilience of commercial IoT devices against cyber-attacks, security considerations should be integrated right from the design stage of new products. However, the wide heterogeneity of IoT devices poses challenges to the development of well-established security-by-design methods for the IoT. Choose one of the following IoT devices:
• Arduino
• Raspberry PI
• BeagleBone
• ESP32 and ESP8266
For the type of IoT device your group has selected, you will need to discuss the following:
1. Identify and discuss three security vulnerabilities specific to the selected IoT device. 2. Demonstrate the working mechanism of two types of attacks against the selected IoT device. 3. Demonstrate two techniques or security tools that can be used to mitigate/prevent the identified attacks in point (2).
4. The objective of computer security is to protect the Integrity, Confidentiality, and Availability (CIA) of information on the devices that store, manipulate, and transmit the information. Analyze the attack methods identified in point 2 and the security tools identified in point 3 against CIA.
5. Demonstrate the main challenges in protecting the selected IoT device.
The importance of cryptography has increased over time, making it a key defense in securing data from threat actors. Select one type of cryptographic algorithm that has been developed or proposed for the selected IoT device and provide its working techniques and features.
In your report, you have to support your discussion with references from recent conferences and articles published within the last 4 years that are related to the selected IoT device.
In completing this assessment successfully, you will be able to investigate IS security, risk threats and propose the suitable security controls, which will help in achieving ULO-3, and ULO-4.
Marking Information: The applied project will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 30% of the total unit mark.
Marking
Criteria
Not satisfactory
(0-49%) of the
criterion mark)
Satisfactory
(50-64%) of the criterion mark
Good
(65-74%) of the criterion mark
Very Good
(75-84%) of the criterion mark
Excellent
(85-100%) of the criterion mark
Introduction
(10 marks)
Poor Introduction with irrelevant details
Introduction is
presented briefly
with some
relevance and
missing elements.
Introduction is
generally presented in good fashion,
however missing one element.
Introduction is well written with clear discussion.
Introduction is very well written with very clear background, discussion.
Discuss and
identified three security
vulnerabilities
(15 mark)
Poor discussion with irrelevant information
Brief discussion about security vulnerabilities
Generally good
discussion about
security vulnerabilities
Very clear security vulnerabilities
discussion supported by recent references.
A very detailed
and very clear
security vulnerabilities discussion supported by recent references.
The use of the
attack tool and working
mechanism
(10 mark)
Poor discussion with irrelevant information
Brief discussion about attack tool and
working mechanism
Generally good
discussion about
attack tool and
working mechanism
Very clear attack tool and working
mechanism
A very detailed
and very clear
attack tool and
working mechanism
Analysis the attack tool and security tool against CIA (20 mark)
Poor analysis with
irrelevant details.
Brief discussion of the attack tool and
security tool against CIA
Generally good
discussion of the
attack tool and
security tool against CIA
Very clear discussion of the attack tool and security tool against CIA
In-depth and very clear discussion of the attack tool and
security tool against CIA
Main challenges in protecting the
selected IoT device (10 mark)
Lack of evidence of
understanding of the main challenges
Very brief discussion of the main challenges
Evidence of good
understanding of the main challenges that related to the selected IoT device with limited support references.
Very clear
understanding of the main challenges that related to the selected IoT device with
support references.
Excellent
understanding of the main challenges that related to the selected IoT device with recent support references.
Cryptography
developed/propos ed.
(30 marks)
Lack of evidence of
understanding of
Cryptography algorithm related to the selected IoT with poor working techniques and features
Very brief description of the Cryptography algorithm related to selected IoT with poor working techniques and features.
Evidence of good
discussion of the
Cryptography
algorithm related to selected IoT with good working techniques and features.
Very clear discussion of the Cryptography algorithm related to the selected IoT with
very good working techniques and
features supported with recent
references.
Excellent discussion of the Cryptography algorithm related to the selected IoT with very good working techniques and
features supported with recent
references.
Summary
(5 marks)
Summary not
relating to the
report
Brief summary of the report with some
relevance
Generally good
summary of the
report
clearly
summarizing the
overall
contribution
very
clearly
summarizing the