Points |
|
1
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise skipped or content completely incorrect
|
Only one aspect correctly analyzed and documented with proof.
|
|
|
|
|
Q2
|
Exercise skipped or content completely incorrect
|
|
Correct verdict supplied but with little to no proof offered |
|
|
|
Q3
|
Exercise skipped or content completely incorrect
|
|
|
|
|
Correct traversal of the code, identification and investigation of
exit conditions, likely main function identified with conclusive proof
given (e.g. with screenshots).
|
Q4
|
|
|
|
|
Student successfully used
Pseudocode plugin to restore the source code, and provided
detailed interpretation or analysis. If applied to wrong function: -1
point.
|
Student successfully used Pseudocode plugin to restore the source
code, and provided detailed interpretation and analysis. If applied to
wrong function: -1 point.
|
|
|
|
|
Parameters are identified, with proof given (e.g. from the
pseudocode). No testing.
|
Parameters are identified, with proof given through fuzzy testing
only, with little proof in the
source. Test values were wisely chosen.
|
|
|
|
Successfully encrypted a file with the ransom trojan,
without much documentation or direction.
|
Successfully encrypted at
least one file and studied in a hex editor. Found the string identifying
the file as
encrypted with no further
interpretation or analysis.
|
|
|
|
Q7
|
Exercise skipped or content completely incorrect
|
|
|
|
|
Relevant operations successfully located in the code; full
documentation of the process in both static and dynamic tools
|
Q8
|
|
|
|
|
Correct crypto algorithm identified with proof given.
|
Correct crypto algorithm identified with proof given and full
explanation provided.
|
|
|
|
|
Partial summary provided with only two aspects answered
correctly.
|
Partial summary provided with only all three aspects answered
correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
Unsuccessful decryption, but generally sound process/tools
used/suggested
|
Successful decryption of own file by calculating the key
|
|
|