LD7008 Wireless Networks and Security LD7008 Assessment 1 Brief Module Code LD7008 Module Title Wireless Networks and Security Statement of task Assessment A1 This assessment invites you to address the following task:
| LD7008 Wireless Networks and Security |
LD7008 Assessment 1 Brief
Module Code | LD7008 | Module Title | Wireless Networks and Security |
Statement of task | Assessment A1 This assessment invites you to address the following task: 1. Critical appraisal of the global nature of WLAN standards and design | ||
Word Limit | The total word limit for this assessment paper should have no more than 2000 plus the 10% which is allowed to add. | ||
Weighting | This assessment is worth 50 %_A1 | ||
Submission Time and Date | The deadline is 16/01/2026 no later than 16:00 GMT | ||
Submission of Assessment | This assessment should be submitted electronically, online via Turnitin. You will find a Turnitin link to submit your assessment on the module eLP Blackboard site. It is your responsibility to ensure that your assessment is submitted by the submission deadline stated. Penalties apply for late submissions | ||
Provision of feedback | Written feedback will be provided on 06/02/2026 | ||
This assignment consists of one component.
A1 – 2000 words submitted plus 10% apart of the tables and references.
Instructions on Assessment:
You are required to investigate the vulnerabilities and weaknesses of one of the topics below. You are expected to research the technical details of the vulnerability, how it can be done, the impact of this vulnerability and the risks it poses on the networks and the businesses. You are also expected to identify methods that are used or proposed to prevent attacks and mitigate those risks.
Topics
1. Eavesdropping in Bluetooth networks.
2. IoT Malicious node- Routing attacks.
3. IoT firmware hijacking attacks
4. IoT confidentiality attacks
5. Wireless LAN rogue access point
6. Crack wireless vulnerability in WPA2
7. Brak tooth vulnerability in Bluetooth devices.
8. NFC relay attack vulnerability.
9. Students can choose a different attack if it is agreed by lecturer – You are required to contact me if choosing your own topic.
Instructions
- You are required to use the template available in assessment page (IEEE template)
- You are expected to use research papers and reference them in your document.
Word count
You should not exceed 5 pages using the template with the same font size. This is roughly around 2000 words.
Mapping to Programme Goals and Objectives
Learning Outcomes tested in this assessment:
The following Learning outcomes will be addressed in this assignment:
- LO2. Be able to describe, explain critically and assess wireless and mobile data communication technologies deployed along with associated security issues.
- LO3. Critically analyse 802.11 protocol information and demonstrate skills in designing secure wireless networks
- LO4. Apply suitable security measures to protect wireless networks against known weaknesses
Module Specific Assessment Criteria and Rubric
| Requirements | Maxmark |
| Abstract (max 100 words (discuss scenario)) | 5 |
| Introduction | 10 |
| Literature review on the topic. | 15 |
| Technical background on the vulnerability -How the vulnerability can be exploited. | 15 |
| Risk assessment of the impact of the chosen vulnerability/ies on theuser/network | 15 |
| Recommend or suggest which of those solutions is the most suitable and justify your opinion | 25 |
| Conclusion and further studies | 10 |
| References | 5 |
ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS
You are advised to read the guidance for students regarding assessment policies. They are available online here.
Academic Misconduct
The Assessment Regulations for Taught Awards (ARTA) contain the Regulations and procedures applying to cheating, plagiarism, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Systems, and other forms of academic misconduct.
The full policy is available here
You are reminded that plagiarism, collusion, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Systems, and other forms of academic misconduct, as referred to in the Academic Misconduct procedure of the assessment regulations, are taken very seriously. Assignments in which evidence of plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct is found may receive a mark of zero.
Late submission of work
Where coursework is submitted without approval, after the published hand-in deadline, the following penalties will apply. For coursework submitted up to 1 working day (24 hours) after the published hand-in deadline without approval, 10% of the total marks available for the assessment (i.e.100%) shall be deducted from the assessment mark.
For clarity: a late piece of work that would have scored 65%, 55% or 45% had it been handed in on time will be awarded 55%, 45% or 35% respectively as 10% of the total available marks will have been deducted.
The Penalty does not apply to Pass/Fail Modules, i.e. there will be no penalty for late submission if assessments on Pass/Fail are submitted up to 1 working day (24 hours) after the published hand-in deadline.
Coursework submitted more than 1 day (24 hours) after the published hand-in deadline without approval will be marked as zero but will be eligible for referral. The reassessment should where appropriate, and as determined by the Module Leader, be the same method (e.g. essay) but maybe with a different task (e.g. different essay title) or with the same task (e.g. the same essay title) as indicated in the Module handbook.
In modules where there is more than one assessment component, Students are not required to complete all assessment components if an overall Pass Mark (40% UG, 50% PGT) has been achieved.
The only permitted exception will be in cases where the University is prevented from doing so by a PSRB requirement. In the case of PSRB requirements, a variation order will be required from the regulations.
In modules, where there is more than one assessment component and an overall pass mark has not been achieved, Students will be eligible for a referral* in the individual failed module and/or not attempted component(s) of assessment.
These provisions apply to all assessments, including those assessed on a Pass/Fail basis.
Word limits
The word count is to be declared on the front page of your assignment and the assignment cover sheet. The word count does not include:
The word limits count will not include the tables, appendices, glossary, footnotes, and references.
Please note, in text citations [e.g. (Smith, 2011)] and direct secondary quotations [e.g. “dib-dab nonsense analysis” (Smith, 2011 p.123)] are INCLUDED in the word count.
If this word count is falsified, students are reminded that under ARTA this will be regarded as academic misconduct.
For those assessments where students are required to keep to the word limit, it is proposed that they should be informed that the marker will stop reading at the point when they judge that the word limit exceeds the recommended word count by more than 10%. The marker will indicate the point at which they stop reading on the text.
Students must retain an electronic copy of this assignment (including ALL appendices) and it must be made available within 24hours of them requesting it be submitted.
Module Specific Assessment Criteria and Rubric
Assessment criteria | Completely insufficient | Insufficient | Satisfactory | Good | Very Good | Excellent |
| 0-39% | 40-49% | 50-59% | 60-69% | 70-79% | 80-100% |
Abstract & Int | No efforts have made to expose the research aspect | No efforts have made to expose the research aspect | normal efforts which do not show the whole picture of the development | Good efforts made to brief abstract | Very good understanding about the progress made in the development of the paper topic | Excellent brief about the progress made in the development of the paper topic |
Lit Review | Insufficient details about the current and previous work have been presented | Insufficient efforts and attempt about the current and previous work have been presented | Satisfactory efforts made to explain the core subject domain with less example and research acumen | Good explanation of the core subject with good view of the problem domain | Very good explanation of the current and previous attempts and authors work towards the topic and knowledge domain | Excellent and deep explanation of the current and previous attempts and authors work towards the topic and knowledge domain |
Technical Bg
| No efforts have been done at all | No sufficient attempt and efforts have been done so far | Adequate details have been presented about the security technical background and more in depth details are missing | Good efforts has been placed to explain the technical background about the problem domain | Very Good efforts has been placed to explain the technical background about the problem domain | Excellent details and deep understanding about the security issues and problem domain has been presented, in addition to the technical issues, design and architecture aspects has been discussed |
RiskAssess
| insufficient efforts made to highlight the impact on the functional aspects | No sufficient efforts and attempt made to highlight the impact on the functional aspects | Adequate explanation has been made to highlight the important impact on the operation | Good explanation has been made to highlight the important impact on the operation | Very Good efforts have been made to analyse the expected risks and its impact on the security operations | Excellent efforts and deep understanding have been done to highlight the vital stages of the Risk assessment and very good explanation has been made to avoid any unexpected events against the suggested model/design |
Recommendation | No Sufficient recommendations have been suggested which misses the new aspects and features of the proposed theory/idea | Insufficient recommendations and attempts have been suggested which misses the new aspects and features of the proposed theory/idea | Adequate recommendations have been suggested which misses the new aspects and features of the proposed theory/idea | Good efforts and a developing design has been recommended to overcome the traditional aspects of the current vulnerabilities | Very good effort has been made to suggest and recommend a developed design with new aspects to solve the current vulnerability | Excellent efforts has been done to highlight the vital stages of the Risk assessment and very good explanation has been made to avoid any unexpected events against the suggested model/design |
Conclusion | No sufficient conclusions and pragmatic ideas have been presented to develop the solution | No sufficient conclusions and realistic ideas have been presented to develop the solution | fair conclusions and some random practical ideas have been presented to develop the current solution | Good conclusions and some random practical ideas have been presented to develop the current solution | Very good conclusions and deep understanding with good idea have been presented to develop further the suggested design or model | Clear conclusions and brilliant Idea has been suggested to develop the solution in the future with very good functionalities…etc. |
References | No ref has been used at all | No sufficient references have been inserted for such an important subject | Adequate references have been inserted for such an important subject | Good and sufficient references have been inserted for such an important subject | Very good references have been inserted | Excellent references have been used and very good in text citation has been inserted |
Assessment Guidance Session
Detailed assessment guidance will be given in Week 3 Seminar/lecture. The Seminar/lecture will provide advice on
1. Overview of the module learning objectives and align them with a good study plan
2. How to understand the requirements of the given Wireless security issues.
3. How to conduct/ research further reading about wireless security vulnerabilities
4. how the assessment will be graded against the rubric
5. How to submit the reports( both A1 &A2) and using NU IT system and not miss the deadline.
You are reminded that recorded assessment guidance will be provided on the eLP Blackboard site for this module after Week 3 Seminar.
Use of Generative AI within this Assessment
In alignment with Northumbria University’s Academic Regulations for Taught Awards (ARTA), section 1.2, you are reminded that “In all assessed work students should take care to ensure that the work presented is their own and that it fully acknowledges the work and opinions of others”.
Unless the assessment specific guidance above requests that you use generative AI in crafting your assessment, AI should not be used to do the core work for you. You should assume that generative AI may be used as follows:
- AI can help with things like improving grammar, helping with structure format, organising ideas, and generating suggestions.
- The main content, analysis, and conclusions in your work must always be your own work
Further guidance regarding using AI responsibly and ethically can be found in your student portal here.
When you submit your assessment, you will be requested to add and sign a declaration of your use of AI in the creation of your work. A copy of this declaration document is attached to the end of this document. You should place this signed copy at the front of your submission. Failure to accurately record your use of such tools may be considered as academic misconduct.
Academic Regulations
As part of the preparation for writing your assessment, you should familiarise yourself with the following policies, all of which can be found here:
- Academic Regulations for Taught Awards (ARTA)
- Academic Misconduct
- Word Limit
- Late Submission of Work
- Short Extensions
- Personal Extenuating Circumstances (PEC)
- Technical Extenuating Circumstances (TEC)
Please see the module Blackboard site/eLP for further details of how the University Assessment Regulations may affect/support you
