Culminating AssignmentConcept Paper:   Red Team Assessment Strategies in CybersecurityDirections:1.  Read the scenario, access the resources, and review the rubric below to help you understand the assignment.  The final paper will be due in Week 7.  You should begin working on the assignment right away, and you will share your progress in Week 6.  2.  Write a paper that follows the listed parameters, addresses the important concepts, and includes the required sections:Parameters: 

• Ranges from 4 – 5 double-spaced pages and use IEEE formatting style. 
• Uses Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides.
• Includes at least three (3) quality resources to support your ideas.  You may use the resources provided and/or others of your choosing.  They must be cited appropriately.

Important Concepts:

• Compare and contrast red teaming versus penetration testing based on the presented case.
• Describe the approach to red team assessment.
• Discuss how different types of organizations are utilizing red teaming.

Required Sections:

• Title 
• Introduction:  Clear description of the topic, including a summary of what is already known about that topic.
• Body: 
  • Address important concepts.  
  • What evidence do you have to support your topic?  
• Conclusion:  Why is it important to study this topic? Why is this worth investigating further?
• Reference Page:  IEEE style  

3.  Your paper should enable a casual reader to understand this topic and its importance.  Please make sure the following outcomes are addressed within your paper:

• Explain the common tools and tactics used in red teaming.
• Use technology and information resources to research the evolution of red team assessment techniques.

Due:  In week 7 with the specific date posted in Blackboard.  You will be directed to complete and share parts of this assignment in Week 6.  Scenario:  A large multinational fintech wanted to conduct a Red Team Assessment to evaluate its ability to detect and respond to a real-world cybersecurity attack.The read team started their assessment by sending a phishing email that persuaded the victim to log in to a fake portal hosted on a server to obtain valid credentials. While a small number of users clicked on the malicious link sent in the email, none of them submitted their credentials. This could be attributed to the regular social engineering tests and security awareness training delivered to staff.After the failed phishing campaign, the team went back to the drawing board to come up with a new plan of attack.  Reviewing the company’s Twitter account, the team discovered that they host a monthly community event at one of their buildings. The team registered for the event to deploy a purpose-built device into their internal network. The device will allow the team to gain remote access to the network using either an independent wireless connection or a 3G/4G mobile connection.Two members of the red team attended the event. They managed to slip away from the main event to see if there were any unlocked offices or conference rooms. Once a room had been found. One team member acted as a lookout while the other plugged the device and checked that he could reach it from his mobile phone. Shortly afterward the testers left the event and joined the rest of the team in a coffee shop down the road.  Once connected to the network, the team started mapping the internal network and gathering additional information. Over the next couple of days, the team captured several password hashes, which were achieved by exploiting a weakness in Windows’ broadcast protocols. However, users appeared to be using strong complex passwords and it was not possible to crack the hashes to recover clear-text passwords. The team then decided to relay a captured hash belonging to a user and use it to log in into a workstation where they had local administrative privileges. This allowed them to extract the clear-text password of the currently logged-in users from memory.Resources to help you complete this assignment:

• Red Team Exercise. (2019, September 25). Retrieved July 11, 2021, from Sisainfosec.com website: https://www.sisainfosec.com/services/red-team-exercise/ 
• (N.d.). Retrieved July 11, 2021, from Varonis.com website: https://www.varonis.com/blog/red-teaming/ 
• Wood, B. J., & Duggan, R. A. (2002). Red Teaming of advanced information assurance concepts. Proceedings DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition. DISCEX’00. IEEE Comput. Soc.

Rubric:Points: Assignment: Red Team Assessment Strategies in CybersecurityCriteriaNeeds ImprovementBelow 60-70 FFair70-79 CProficient80-89 BExemplary90-100 A1. Compare and contrast red teaming versus penetration testing based on the presented case. Met outcomes.Weight: 25%Did not submit or incompletely compared and contrasted red teaming versus penetration testing based on the presented case.  Did not meet outcomes.Partially compared and contrasted red teaming versus penetration testing based on the presented case.  Partially met outcomes.Satisfactorily compared and contrasted red teaming versus penetration testing based on the presented case.  Met outcomes.Thoroughly compared and contrasted red teaming versus penetration testing based on the presented case. Exceeded outcomes.2. Describe the approach to red team assessment.Weight: 30%Did not submit or incompletely described the approach to red team assessment.Partially described the approach to red team assessment.Satisfactorily described the approach to red team assessment.Thoroughly described the approach to red team assessment.3. Discuss how different types of organizations are utilizing red teaming.Weight: 30%Did not submit or incompletely discussed how different types of organizations are utilizing red teaming.Partially discussed how different types of organizations are utilizing red teaming.Satisfactorily discussed how different types of organizations are utilizing red teaming.Thoroughly discussed how different types of organizations are utilizing red teaming.5. 3 ReferencesWeight: 5%No references were provided.Does not meet the required number of references; some or all references poor quality choices.Meets the number of required references; all references high-quality choices.Exceeds the number of required references; all references high-quality choices.6. Clarity, writing mechanics,  formatting.Weight: 10%More than 6 errors present5-6 errors present3-4 errors present0-2 errors present