Note: There are 2 parts to this assignment.
Discuss methods for making recommendations to mitigate the critical infrastructure (CI) challenges you have uncovered during your research this term.
- What do you believe provides a strong foundation for creating useful recommendations related to CI? Consider relevance, acceptability, resource allowances or constraints, timeliness, salience, clarity, larger strategy, and so forth. If someone were making recommendations to you personally, what qualities might it take for you to be persuaded to employ these?
- Share with your peers at least 2 fully detailed recommendations that you will make in your Key Assignment. Because your peers will not necessarily know everything about your specific network and sector, explain the rationale for each recommendation, and what outcome you foresee each one having to mitigate or overcome the challenges that you are targeting.
Responses to Other Students: Provide candid, useful, and respectful feedback to at least 3 peers regarding the recommendations they propose. Ask questions for clarity and offer useful resources as well, if appropriate.
Summative Discussion Board
Review and reflect on the knowledge you have gained from this course. Based on your review and reflection, write at least 3 paragraphs on the following:
- What were the most compelling topics learned in this course?
- How did participating in discussions help your understanding of the subject matter? Is anything still unclear that could be clarified?
- What approaches could have yielded additional valuable information?
A scale-free network is a type of network that is distinguished by the presence of large hubs and has a power-law degree distribution. The power law means that the vast majority of nodes have fewer connections and a few important hubs have a very large number of connections. On the other hand, a small-world network is a graph-like structure in which most nodes are not neighbours or close to one another but the neighbours of these nodes are most likely to be neighbors of each other and with very few steps, they can easily be reached.My selection of network is the scale-free network and an example of this is online social networks. This is because the fraction of nodes with degree k follows a power law. Although they may be identified as weakly scale-free. They are seen as scale-free because they appear to have a degree distribution with a power-law tail. The nodes are the people within the networks and the edges or links are what connect them. They can be identified as a cascading network as this type of network influences each other’s behaviors and decisions.Understanding the difference between scale-free and small-world networks helps to plan protective measures more successfully because you learn exactly what type of network you are dealing with and the type of protective measures to put forward in order to have it protected from any kind of cyber-attacks. The measures that are put on scale-free networks differ from those in small-world networks as they have interlinked connections and could be brought down by an attack on a single or few nodes which may lead to a failure. Online social networks are very vulnerable and the Barabasi Albert scale-free model is used to measure their vulnerability. Examples that may be seen from this are electric power networks between the Western States and the Nordic transmission grid. Because the network that is being dealt with is known, the topological characteristics of these networks are calculated and then compared to their error and attack tolerance. Another example is how some vertices can easily spread faults leading to a high probability of network failure and some are affected by propagated faults. Therefore, the right measures are put forward to avoid this.PART 2The type of vulnerability that can be assessed from it is that the thickness of the gusset was designed proportional to the bending moment and this did not give sufficient consideration to the effects of the forces from diagonal truss members. The design of the node of the bridge was inadequate to effectively distribute dead and live nodes. The ductile steel is equally comprised of gusset plates and this compromised it. The environment may not have contributed to the fall of the bridge although the aftermath of it had an effect as the air was polluted and so was the water and soil. Other vulnerabilities included destroyed vehicles, toxin releases, and hydrologic impacts.