Using the following case from Information Technology for Managers (2nd ed.),
Do the following in this week’s case discussion forum:
- Collaborate with your peers in this week’s case discussion forum to research and summarize other hacks which have impacted either other private companies or government agencies.
- Identify the both the victim’s response to the cyberattack and any government response.
- Compare and contrast other hacks to Sony’s experience in 2014.
This collaborative activity should provide you the foundation you’ll need to address the case questions in your analysis this week.
Then, answer the following (case questions):
- Compare and contrast the hack experienced by Sony Pictures Entertainment in 2014 with other known hacks.
- How did the U.S. government respond to the attack? Was the response appropriate?
- How did Sony respond to the attack? Will Sony’s response encourage or discourage future attacks?
- In what ways does the Sony hack reflect emerging cyberthreats that could be made on critical infrastructure?
- What steps should be taken so that all businesses and the U.S. government can work together to prevent both real-world terrorist violence and cyberattacks?
Draft a 3-5 page position paper analysis for Sony’s Leadership leveraging what you have learned through collaboration, your own independent research, and the application of this week’s topics to analyize the above mentioned case. Be sure to start your analysis with the points of this assignment in your final position paper (introduction, summary of the central issue, analysis, recommendations and conclusion). Be sure to cite your work appropriately using APA formatted citations and include a references page.
Get help with APA-style citations at Purdue’s OWL site>>Links to an external site.
View RubricCase Study RubricCase Study RubricCriteriaRatingsPtsUnderstandingview longer description5 ptsExceptional: Demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)4 ptsGood: Demonstrates an accomplished understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)3 ptsFair: Demonstrates an acceptable sophisticated understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)2 ptsPoor: Demonstrates an inadequate understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)0 pts/ 5 ptsAnalysisview longer description5 ptsExceptional: Makes appropriate and powerful connections between the issues identified and the strategic concepts studied in the reading4 ptsGood: Makes appropriate connections between the issues identified and the strategic concepts studied in the reading3 ptsFair: Makes appropriate but somewhat vague connections between the issues and concepts studied in the reading2 ptsPoor: Makes little or no connection between the issues identified and the strategic concepts studied in the reading0 pts/ 5 ptsRecommendationsview longer description10 ptsExceptional: Presents detailed, realistic, and appropriate recommendations clearly supported by the information presented and concepts from the reading8 ptsGood: Presents specific, realistic, and appropriate recommendationssupported by the information presented and concepts from the reading6 ptsFair: Presents realistic or appropriate recommendations supported by the information presented and concepts from the reading4 ptsPoor: Presents realistic or appropriate recommendations with little, if any, support from the information presented and concepts from the reading0 pts/ 10 ptsUse and Quality of Referencesview longer description5 ptsAll reliable authorities.4 ptsMost are reliable authorities.3 ptsSome are reliable authorities2 ptsNone are reliable authorities0 pts/ 5 ptsTotal Points: 0
Choose a submission type
Submission type Upload, currently selectedUploadMore submission optionsMoreSubmit file using Webcam PhotoWebcam PhotoSubmit file using Canvas FilesCanvas Files