Term Project Report

• for design projects only

33 points

• The project solves an important problem in an interesting and original way, and
• the solution is sound and feasible.

22

• The project solves a somewhat important problem in an ordinary way, or
• the solution does not seem to be quite sound or realistic.

11

• The project solves a not very important problem, or
• the solution is quite unoriginal, or
• the solution is not sound or is unrealistic.

0

• The project solves an unimportant problem, or
• the reported solution has been known, or
• the solution is unsound, incorrect, or completely unrealistic.

• for analysis projects only

33

• The project analyzes solutions to an important problem, and
• the analysis seems to be technically correct, sound and repeatable.

22

• The project analyzes solutions to somewhat important problem, or
• the analysis seems to be largely technically correct, sound and repeatable, but some parts of the analysis contain errors or rely on false assumptions.

11

• The project analyzes solutions to a minor problem, or
• the analysis approach requires significant corrections to make it technically correct, sound, and repeatable.

0

• The project analyzes solutions to an unimportant problem, or
• the analysis approach is technically wrong.

• all projects

19

Many techniques and methods, as well as the security-specific knowledge studied during the course have been successfully applied by the project team.

13

Very few techniques and methods studied during the course have been successfully applied by the project team.

6

Almost no techniques, knowledge, or methods studied during the course have been successfully applied by the project team

0

No techniques, knowledge, or methods studied during the course have been successfully applied by the project team

• Format

6

The report follows the format of IEEE Transactions.

4

The report follows the format of IEEE Transactions but not exactly.

2

The report follows the format of IEEE Transactions but but has major deviations from it.

0

The report does not follow the format of IEEE Transactions.

• Abstract

3

Summarizes goal of project and results concisely.   Specific information provided.

2

Most information is presented, but some items may be missing.

1

Insufficient summary of what was done.   Few specific results presented.

0

Abstract is missing or contains no specific information.

• Introduction

3

Discusses why the project was done, motivates the problem addressed, justifies the impotents of the work, and summarizes specific results.   Presents background information, with references, relevant to the topic/problem.

2

Gives general description of the purpose of the project and motivation, but some relevant background information or a summary of the results may be missing.

1

Some information on the purpose of the project and motivation are given, but no background, or summary of the results, or references provided

0

Provides little or no information on why the project was done or what its results are.   No background information given.

• Related work (design projects only)

3

Provides a very good overview of the related work and demonstrates excellent knowledge and ability to summarize and analyze what has been done by others to address the problem that the project addresses.

2

Provides a some overview of the related work and demonstrates reasonable knowledge and ability to summarize and analyze what has been done by others to address the problem that the project addresses.

1

Provides an incomplete overview of the related work and demonstrates shallow knowledge and ability to summarize and analyze what has been done by others to address the problem that the project addresses.

0

Provides almost no overview of the related work and does not demonstrate knowledge and ability to summarize and analyze what has been done by others to address the problem that the project addresses.

• Solution (design projects only)

9

Explains very clearly and at the appropriate level of detail the solution developed as a result of the project. Explains "whats" and "whys" has been done.

6-8

Explains somewhat clearly and at a reasonable level of detail the solution developed as a result of the project. However, the explanation makes the reader somewhat confused about what exactly has been done and why.

3-5

The explanation of the solution developed as a result of the project is incomplete and hard to follow. The explanation of what exactly has been done and why makes the reader very confused.

0-2

The explanation of the solution developed as a result of the project is almost missing. The explanation of what exactly has been done and why is either missing or makes the reader completely confused.

• Analysis (analysis projects only)

12

Descries clearly and in sufficient detail the results of a study (done by the project) of some previously-proposed implementation technique, existing system/solution, or class of systems/solutions; Evaluates its security properties. Find flaws, or strengths, in it, and provides new insight into how to build secure systems/solutions.

8-11

Descries somewhat clearly and in reasonable detail the results of a study (done by the project) of some previously-proposed implementation technique, existing system/solution, or class of systems/solutions; Possibly evaluates its security properties. Find flaws, or strengths, in it.

4-7

Descries confusingly or in inappropriate level of detail the results of a study (done by the project) of some previously-proposed implementation technique, existing system/solution, or class of systems/solutions; Dose not valuate its security properties. Does not find flaws, or strengths, in it.

0-3

Provides incomplete or no description of the results of a study (done by the project) of some previously-proposed implementation technique, existing system/solution, or class of systems/solutions; Dose not valuate its security properties. Does not find flaws, or strengths, in it.

• Discussion

3

Clearly discusses what results mean and what conclusions may be drawn from them.

2

Generally clear discussion of results and conclusions, but may miss some points.

1

Limited discussion of results and conclusions.

0

Reader can gain very little information about what results mean or what conclusions may be drawn from them.

• References

6

• Includes references to methods, related studies, background sources within text; list of complete citations in appropriate style at end, and
• no more than 20% of all references refer to the sources that are online-only (i.e., don't have paper versions).

4

• Appropriate references are generally present; some may be incomplete or in incorrect style, or
• between 21% and 30% of all references refer to the sources that are online-only (i.e., don't have paper versions).

2

• Few references are given.   Style is incorrect and/or incomplete, or
• between 31% and 40% of all references refer to the sources that are online-only (i.e., don't have paper versions).

0

• No references provided, or
• more than 40% of all references refer to the sources that are online-only (i.e., don't have paper versions).

15

Writing is free of errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, spelling. Uses active voice.   Flows smoothly.   Logical connection of points. Standard style for technical reports is followed.

10

Writing is generally error-free and in active voice.   Sentence flow is generally smooth and logical.   Standard style for technical reports is generally followed.   Minor errors may be present.

5

Writing has some errors but these are not too distracting.   Voice may change randomly. Flow is not consistently smooth; appears disjointed.   Standard style for technical reports is not followed consistently.

0

Errors are frequent and distracting, so that it is hard to determine meaning.   No logical connection of ideas or flow of sentences. Standard style for technical reports is not followed consistently.