Final winn-dixi redeviopment project Humanities Assignment Help

Ransomware and Virus Protection

You work as an information security specialist for a large financial company and your CISO has asked you to investigate the recent ransomware attacks. The CISO wants to ensure that the company is well protected against these types of attacks.

Write a paper in which you answer the following:

Identify the common targets of ransomware. Explain why these targets are so attractive to hackers.
Determine the best practices that should be implemented by the security department to help reduce the risks posed by ransomware.
Propose what users and system administrators should do when a potential infection has been suspected.
Compare and contrast viruses, worms, and Trojans, and indicate which of these you consider to be the greatest danger to computer users and / or the greatest challenge for security personnel to protect against.
Use the Internet to identify three commercially available antivirus software products for corporate use; compare the features of each and describe which one you would recommend, and why.
Use at least three quality resources in this assignment. Note: Wikipedia and similar websites do not qualify as quality resources.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:

Analyze system vulnerabilities exploited by hackers.
Design plans that remove Trojans, backdoors, and malware from infected systems.
Use technology and information resources to research issues in cybercrime techniques and response.
Write clearly and concisely about topics related to cybercrime techniques and response using proper writing mechanics and technical style conventions.

Case Study

Mary is a 35 years old electrical engineer who presents to the office for evaluation of a rash on her face that has been present for 1 week. She denies new soaps, detergents, lotions, environmental exposures, medications, and foods. The rash is across her face and the bridge of her nose. She states that she first noticed it after spending a week hiking and camping in the Appalachians. The lesions itch and are painful. She has not tried anything to make it better, but she has noticed that going outdoors makes it worse. She denies any spread of the rash to other areas. She has never had this rash before.

She has noticed some increased fatigue, fever, and weight loss. She denies headache, sore throat, ear pain, nasal or sinus congestion, chest pain, shortness of breath, cough, abdominal pain, and pain with urination, constipation, or diarrhea. She does have mouth soreness. She has noticed some increased muscle aches and pains, which are worse in the hand and wrist. She denies early morning joint stiffness or difficulty with being able to move in the morning. She denies temperature intolerance, polyuria, polydipsia, or polyphagia.

She had a tonsillectomy at age 9 for chronic strep throat infections. She has been healthy as an adult. She has never had children. She has never been hospitalized for any reason.

Her family history is significant for a mother with rheumatoid arthritis. Her father is healthy.

She does not smoke; she drinks a glass of wine nearly every night with her dinner; she denies illicit drug use. She completed a master’s degree in engineering. She has lived with her boyfriend for the past 5 years.

Patient is an alert young woman, sitting comfortably on the examination table. BP 112/66 mm Hg; HR 62 BPM and regular; respiratory rate 12 breaths/min; temperature 100.3°F. Several erythematous plaques scattered over the cheeks and the bridge of nose, sparing the nasolabial folds. Normocephalic, atraumatic. Sclera white, conjunctivae clear; pupils constrict from 4 mm to 2 mm and equal, round, and reactive to light and accommodation. Oropharynx moist with erythema in the posterior pharyngeal wall; no exudates; shallow ulcers in the buccal mucosa bilaterally. Neck supple without cervical lymphadenopathy or thyromegaly. Full range of motion; no swelling or deformity; muscles with normal bulk and tone.

Instructions:

Make a whole history and physical examination in a comprehensive manner with all its elements included: CC, HPI, PMH, FH, SH, MEDICATIONS, ALLERGIES, ROS PER APPARATUS OR SYSTEMNS, HEAD TO TOE PHYSIACL EXAMINATION PER SYSTEMS (write your presentation in H&P format no paragraph format).

Based on this information, what is your presumptive nursing diagnosis? All nursing diagnosis that apply to the case ( Minimum 3) written in

NANDA format related to … and evidence by…., NO MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS.

Teaching plan and nursing care plan per each nursing diagnosis on this case.

• Paper Instructions

  For those of you who are unfamiliar with how to write a research paper, this detailed guide is for you. For those of you who think you are already experts, read this anyway because it explains exactly what I expect and how I will grade you. Here are the steps you should follow.

  1. Read the Goal of the Paper below.
  2. Follow the Proposal instructions to help you pick a topic. The proposal provides the opportunity for you to kickstart your research and gain early feedback from the instructor.
  3. Before you write your paper, read the Chicago Style Guide and Grading Rubric.

  Before you begin writing your paper, read Writing a Paper and Paper Structure & Outline below.

TOPIC ON THE RESEARCH PAPER: METHAETICS

• Do we have free-will?
  • General
    • O’Connor, Timothy, “Free Will”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/freewill/>.
    • Timpe, Kevin. “Free Will.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed March 15, 2018. https://www.iep.utm.edu/freewill/.

McClusky, Colleen. “Medieval Theories of Free Will.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed March 15, 2018. https://www.iep.utm.edu/freewi-m/.

DIRECTIONS

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G6Z4UpRer14Fu8EaHt3pw51FzseK2rHcqEWasneDvn0/edit#heading=h.ipifrebfouef

Read this website before starting. This is all the instruction

Write the paper with the rubring criteria beside, in order to receive the best grade be sure that everything fulfill the criteria before submitting.

Final Paper Assignment – Rhetorical Criticism

To complete your final paper, you should have already gone through all of the steps explained in the Foss book for doing the type of rhetorical criticism you have chosen -1) Select your artifact, 2) Analyze your artifact, 3) Formulate your research questions – and now are ready to write your paper. By the time you get to the point where you are ready to actually write your paper, you should also have already completed four of the five checkpoints and gotten feedback from me about them. So, what should you do from here? This assignment sheet explains the process you should go through in actually constructing your final paper and then provides an outline for what the final paper should look like. Remember, these instructions start AFTER you have done all of the Foss steps AND completed your first four checkpoints. If you have not done all of the steps, you might need to go back.

What do I do now:

1. Write your central claim and analysis section – Although you put yourself through the steps of doing a preliminary analysis for Checkpoint #1, these merely constitute your notes and may not reflect your final choice of theory/method your wrote up in Checkpoint #4. If you did not change your theory/method from Checkpoint #1, then you retracing your analysis steps, review your notes, and make sure have written a research question. If you did change your theory/method for Checkpoint #4, then make sure to go back and do the Foss steps for this method with your artifact.

Your central claim, or thesis, should be your answer to your research question based on what you found in your notes. It should be ONE sentence. Then you can follow it up with 3-5 explanatory sentences which sum up what you found in your analysis that demonstrate or support that central claim or thesis. This central claim will end up being written at the start of your analysis section and the supporting sentences will provide the outline for what goes into your analysis section.

For example, if I did a neo-Aristotelian analysis of President Bush’s 9/11 Speech for my final paper, I might have found that his goal was to comfort the American people. So my research question(s) might be something like: What rhetorical strategies did President Bush use to comfort the American people in his speech? And, in line with the goal of neo-Aristotelian criticism, was he effective? Based on what I found in my notes, I might decide that he was effective due to the ways he divided us/them (pathos), his use of references to specific groups of American people (pathos), and focus on actions being taken by the American people and government to move forward (ethos). So, my central claim would be an answer to the latter research question: President Bush was effective in providing comfort to the American people. My supporting statements would be: He was effective due to his use of ethos and pathos. Then the sections of my analysis section would explain how he used ethos and pathos and include references to specific quotes and examples from the speech that supported by conclusions.

2. Revise Checkpoints and Add to Appropriate Sections of the Final Paper – Now that you know what point you are trying to make in your final paper from writing your analysis section and central claim, you can revise your checkpoints and put them into your paper. See the outline of the final paper below for an explanation of what I will expect to see in each section. Based on these expectations and the feedback I gave you previously, you should be able to write the first three sections of the paper.

3. Write Your Conclusion – All you have left now is to write a brief conclusion. The easiest part of your conclusion is to provide a brief summary of the points you have already made. The best way to do this is to repeat (more briefly) the answer(s) you have already provided for your research question(s) and summarize the evidence from the artifact that supports your conclusions. The harder part of the conclusion is now to explain to your readers (me and the class) what we now understand that we did not before we read your paper. The simplest way to do this is to make connections (comparisons and contrasts) between what has been researched about your topic previous (from sections 1 & 2 of your paper) and what you found.

The following outline should give you a general idea of How to Organize Your Final Paper:

I. Introduction (approx. 1 page) – This will involve primarily revising Checkpoint #2. I will expect to see the following in your introduction:

A. Get the reader’s attention

B. Establish the significance or importance of your topics (includes research)

C. Explanation of the purpose of your research, or what you hope to find a result of your analysis

D. Outline of the sections of the paper

II. Brief summary or description of your artifact (approx. 1-2 pages) – This will involve parts of Checkpoint #2 as well. It should include two parts:

A. Summarize what your artifact is about in 1-2 paragraphs (do not do too much! Most of your details will come out in your analysis.)

B. Include scholarly research about your topic and/or artifact. What research has already been done onyour topic and/or research. Just summarizing this research is a minimum expectation. An advanced version of this section would include comparing and contrasting what others did with what you hope to do in your paper.

III. Definition of Rhetoric (approx.1 page) – This will involve revising and selecting relevant section of Checkpoint #3. It should NOT just be your whole Checkpoint #3, even as it SHOULD include relevant connections to theorists you used in Checkpoint #3. To make choices about what to include and what to delete, consider the two parts I will be looking for in your paper:

A. Your definition of rhetoric

B. Explanation of the relevance of your definition of rhetoric to your artifact and type of analysis you have chosen to conduct (theory/method).

IV. Summary of the theory and method (approx. 2-3 pages) – This will involve revising Checkpoint #4. It should include explanation of both important theoretical concepts and a step-by-step explanation of the steps you went through to do your analysis, including appropriate references and citations to your textbook and the additional article(s) you used. The step-by-step explanation should now be written in PAST TENSE to actually reflect what you DID to do your analysis. This also provides a perfect transition to the next section of the paper where you actually write your central claim or what you found as a result of your analysis.

V. Results of your analysis or Report of your findings (approx. 4-6 pages) – Your analysis section should be dominant elements that emerged in your analysis. The method you used will determine what these elements are (e.g., if you did a neo-Aristotelian criticism, you may end up focusing on the speaker’s ethos and delivery, whereas if you did an ideological criticism you might end up focusing on how power was represented by the family unit shown in a particular TV show). This section SHOULD NOT be just a summary of your object of analysis nor be organized around episodes of a television show or scenes from a movie (scenes should be used as examples to support themes, they are not themes themselves). Nor should it be ALL of your analysis steps. Keep in mind that Foss takes you through the steps in doing your analysis, but at the end explains that you will now write your paper. In other words, your analysis is NOT your paper itself.

Please see the link provided on Canvas for a sample analysis section of a paper. I have also provided sample final papers attached below the Final Paper Assignment that include analysis sections done according to these guidelines. Please also remember that these are examples and should provide you with guidelines for your section. There is no rule that says that you have to have three themes or that the themes shouldn’t interact with one another (if they do, that is another section of your analysis section!). You should still be creative and adapt the format of your analysis section to best present your analysis.

A. Theme #1 – identify theme in topic sentence; explain theme (what is included in it? What is excluded from it? How it emerge?); provide examples from your object of analysis (in the form of scenes, dialogue, lyrics, etc.) that demonstrate the theme AND explain how they demonstrate the theme.

B. Theme #2 – identify theme in topic sentence; explain theme (what is included in it? What is excluded from it? How it emerge?); provide examples from your object of analysis (in the form of scenes, dialogue, lyrics, etc.) that demonstrate the theme AND explain how they demonstrate the theme.

C. Theme #3 – identify theme in topic sentence; explain theme (what is included in it? What is excluded from it? How it emerge?); provide examples from your object of analysis (in the form of scenes, dialogue, lyrics, etc.) that demonstrate the theme AND explain how they demonstrate the theme.

VI. Conclusions/Implications(approx. 1-2 pages) – Should include explicit answers to your research questions, how they can be explained with the theory you used to guide your analysis, and what you learned and what the reader should learn from your paper, including connections to others (scholars) research on the topic and/or artifact