characteristic of Trojan Horses, Viruses, and Worms.

 

1. Please give in-depth view of Security Threats what are the characteristic of Trojan Horses, Viruses, and Worms. Also brief describe common terms like malware, spyware, bots…etc.

2. Please describe in details what is Denial of Service in terms of common form of Security Attack with example(s).

3. Describe more details then just brief about most common Four-layered Model of Security. Also study/research and brief describe common concepts of whitelisting, blacklisting…etc. in an organization environment.

4.Please read chapter 32 of your textbook and review PP slides and read reputable articles/ web resources and discuss:

How does disaster recovery relate to business continuity? What is the scope of DR? What is the scope of BCP? Please list your reference/s

5.Read chapter 32 , online resources and reputable articles/journals AND:

Choose an organization that you are familiar with, for example a university, place that you are working for or any other organization and write a paper and describe your plan and proposal for a comprehensive Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity plan.

Sample Solution

Characteristics of Trojan Horses, Viruses, and Worms

The most common blunder people make when the topic of a computer virus arises is to refer to a worm or Trojan horse as a virus. A Trojan horse, or Trojan, is a type of malicious code or software that looks legitimate but can take control of your computer. A Trojan is designed to damage, disrupt, steal, or in general inflict some other harmful action on your data or network. A virus is malicious code that is attached to a legitimate program or executable file, and requires specific activation, which may include user actions or a time-based event. A virus is triggered by an event on the host system. Once installed on a host system, a virus will automatically propagate itself to other systems. The main purpose of a worm is to self-replicate and propagate across the network.

can have a negative effect as team members don’t develop their own problem-solving skills as they are just told what to do. The paramedic, who was the highest ranked clinician on scene had opted to take a laissez-faire leadership, which Yang (2015) states is good for encouraging personal development but still being kept in the loop of information. By adopting this style, the paramedic was able to let me use my skills to treat the patient whilst still being there in case I needed further interventions, this allowed me to develop my trauma skills. Looking back I realised that the paramedic had also adopted a coaching style to assist me as this was my first trauma job. the paramedic being the senior clinician, took on a coaching role, as this would be able to develop my skills further by questioning what it was that I needed and wanted from the situation (Phillips, 1996). I realise the paramedic had used the GROW model (Whitmore and McFarlane, 2017) as they helped me to realise what it was that I wanted, what stage was I at in the process, what can I do and what am I going to do. The paramedic then helped to assist me to achieve these goals. Whitmore and McFarlane (2017) designed the model that can provide the structure that has the potential to increase the persons potential by increasing confidence and motivation, with both long term and short-term benefits. I realised that the paramedic used a coaching style as it is designed for individual situations and provides short term education, whereas mentoring is more useful for longer periods (Alred, Garvey and Hailstone, 2011).
Once on the ambulance I was able to adopt a more charismatic leadership role, whereby I was able to allow the student to get on with the tasks assigned to them whilst I was able to get the patient to do what was required of them so that everyone was working to the same goal (Bass and Riggio, 2006). St. Thomas University Online (2018) states that both autocratic and charismatic styles are very similar, with differences being that a charismatic style inspires people to do what is wanted, whereas autocratic demands, with both styles producing similar results in the short term. Shortly after getting on the ambulance, both MERIT and the OM arrived on scene to assist, with the OM taking a laissez-faire leadership style. Marriner Tomey (2009) states that a person can allow the experience of the members of staff around them can be left to perform their duties whilst still receiving feedback from the team, which worked well for the OM as the MERIT team has a doctor who has a higher clinical skill set. Bass and Riggio (2006) do suggest that a laissez-faire approach can lead to ineffective decision making, whereas Lewin (1939) goes further to state that a group without leadership can become non-productive over time. Einarsen (1999) states that a lassa-faire leadership can create friction within the groups due to the lack of leadership. Although this maybe the case, due to the small group of the crew. The MERIT team used a very autocratic leaderships due to the possible seriousness of the wounds, as this method provided clear instructions on what needed to be done without having to worry about why (Stanley, 2016). A democratic leadership style may have worked well due to it allowing the delegation of the work to varying crew members to do the tasks required (Gastil, 1994) However due to the nature of injuries to the patient, they would not have benefitted from a democratic leadership style, as Frandsen (2014) states this style takes time to collect on the information and is slow. Frandsen (2014) states a more relaxed s

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.