Expected learning outcomes
The course contributes towards the following learning outcomes:
- Possesses advanced knowledge within the area covered by the Master Programme.
- Possesses specialized insight and good understanding of the research frontier in a selected part of the topic covered by the Master Programme..
- Is able to analyze existing theories, methods and interpretations and to challenge established knowledge and practice in the media technology area.
- Is able to use relevant and suitable methods when carrying out research and development activities in the area of media technologyF4: Is able to critically review relevant literature when solving new or complex problems and is able to integrate the findings into the proposed solution.
- Is able to plan and complete an independent and limited research or development project with guidance and in adherence to research ethics.
Having completed the course, the students should have:
- advanced level of understanding of assumptions and models on which risk analysis methods are based .
- deep understanding of how different assumptions/models influence outcomes of different risk analysis methods.
- Classifications of Risk Management methods
- Examples of Risk Management Methods.
- Decission theory
- Risk, Threat and vulnerability discovery
- Game theory
Teaching Methods (additional text)
The course will be made accessible for both campus and remote students. Every student is free to choose the pedagogic arrangement form that is best fitted for her/his own requirement. The lectures in the course will be given on campus and are open for both categories of students. All the lectures will also be available on Internet through GUC’s learning management system (ClassFronter).
Form(s) of Assessment
Form(s) of Assessment (additional text)
- Written exam 3 hours (alternatively oral exam): 51%
- Projects: 49%.
- Both parts must be passed.
To ensure fairness, course deliverable grading will depend on deliverable quantity, quality and the number of contributing students.
Alphabetical Scale, A(best) – F (fail)
Evaluated by external and internal examiner.
For the written exam: Ordinary re-sit examnination.
Books, articles and WEB resources such as
RA method classification
Douglas J. Landoll. The security risk assessment handbook, p. 8-15. CRC. 2005.
Bornman, G, and Labuschagne, L, 2004, A comparative framework for evaluating information security risk management methods, In proceedings of the Information Security South Africa Conference. 2004, www.infosecsa.co.za
Vorster, A. and Labuschagne, L. 2005. A framework for comparing different information security risk analysis methodologies. In Proceedings of the 2005 Annual Research Conference of the South African institute of Computer Scientists and information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries (White River, South Africa, September 20 - 22, 2005). ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, vol. 150. South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, 95-103.
ENISA. Inventory of risk assessment and risk management methods. Deliverable 1, Final version Version 1.0, 0/03/2006
Campbell and Stamp. A classification scheme for Risk Assessment Methods. Sandia Report. SAND2004-4233.
RA method examples
NIST SP 800-42, p3.1 - 3.21, 4.1- 4.3, C.1-C.9
NIST SP 800-30. p8-27
OECD, “OECD Guidelines for the Security of Information Systems and Networks -- Towards a Culture of Security.” Paris: OECD. July 2002. www.oecd.org. P 10-12
ISO/IEC 27005:2008(E) Information technology - Security techniqueues - Information security risk management
Sven Ove Hansson. Decision Theory - A brief introduction. 2005
Sven Ove Hansson. Fallacies of Risk
Risk Threat and Vulnerability discovery
ISO 27005, Annex C,D
Ed Yourdon. Just enough Structured Analysis. Chapter 9, Dataflow diagrams. + 'How to'.
The vulnerability assessment and mitigation methodology. Chapter 1-4, p. 1-36. MITRE technical report..
Lindley, Dennis V. (2006-09-11). Understanding Uncertainty. Wiley-Interscience. ISBN 978-0470043837
H. Campbell. Risk assessment: subjective or objective? Engineering science and education journal, 7:57 -63, 1998.
F. Redmill. Risk analysis-a subjective process? Engineering Management Journal. Apr 2002. Volume: 12, Issue: 2. p. 91-96
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Game theory. Available from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/
Fudenberg, Drew & Tirole, Jean (1991), Game theory, MIT Press, ISBN 978-0-262-06141-4 , Chapters 1,3,6,8
Replacement course for
There is room for 50 students for the course.