Chapter 25 — Laboratory I

Chapter 25 — Laboratory I

Lesson map

Lesson 25 published. Map, example, EX073.

flowchart TD
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["25.1 Lab setup"]
  N2["25.2 Access tests"]
  N3["25.3 Incident simulation"]
  N4["25.4 Evidence"]
  N5["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5
  N5 --> EX["Worked example"]
  EX --> Q["Exercise EX073"]

Logical drawing

flowchart LR
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["25.1 Lab setup"]
  N2["25.2 Access tests"]
  N3["25.3 Incident simulation"]
  N4["25.4 Evidence"]
  N5["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> Q["EX073"]

[Learning outcomes]
    |
    v
[25.1 Lab setup]
    |
    v
[25.2 Access tests]
    |
    v
[25.3 Incident simulation]
    |
    v
[25.4 Evidence]
    |
    v
[Synthesis]
    |
    v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX073]

Learning outcomes

You will (1) test controls in a safe laboratory; (2) simulate common incidents; (3) record results as evidence.

25.1 Lab setup

In Laboratory I Elena builds a test environment with synthetic pupils, a copy of the access configuration and test accounts for each role. No real data are used. She plans tests for access control, retention and misdirected email warnings. Dr. Asante insists on writing expected results before running tests. Elena learns that a laboratory is a place to discover failures safely, so that they can be fixed before they affect real children. All test accounts are synthetic. The lab mirrors the real configuration.

25.2 Access tests

Elena logs in as each role and attempts to view records. Teachers cannot see pupils from other classes; office staff cannot see support plans after her earlier fix. But a head of year can see safeguarding notes, which the role design did not intend. She traces the problem to an old permission group and removes it. She records the test, the failure and the fix with dates. The head of year's access to safeguarding notes came from that old group alone.

25.3 Incident simulation

Elena simulates a misdirected email by sending a synthetic report to an external test address. The email system warns about an external recipient, as designed. She then simulates a lost tablet and checks that remote wipe works and that the tablet held no cached pupil data. Both succeed. She also simulates a parent's access request through the central inbox and checks that it is logged and assigned within one day. She times each step of the response. Both steps finish on time.

25.4 Evidence

Elena compiles results into a laboratory report: tests, expected results, actual results, failures and fixes. She notes that the report is evidence for accountability and should be kept with the trust's data protection records. She also notes what she did not test, such as vendor deletion. Dr. Asante reminds her that a test report is as valuable for what it shows is untested as for what it shows works. Untested areas are listed explicitly in the report. Vendor deletion is tested later.

Worked example

Elena tests access, retention and incident responses on synthetic data, finds and removes a head-of-year safeguarding permission, confirms email warnings and remote wipe, and records evidence including untested areas.

Synthetic case. The laboratory is synthetic.

Errors and limits

Laboratory configurations can drift from production; compare them regularly.

Exercises

• EX073 — Unexpected access. What unexpected access did testing reveal? Rubric: 3 = a head of year could see safeguarding notes;; 2 = mentions safeguarding;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
• EX074 — Lost tablet test. What did the lost-tablet simulation check? Rubric: 3 = remote wipe works and no cached pupil data on the device;; 2 = one;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
• EX075 — Untested areas. Why record what was not tested? Rubric: 3 = it shows where assurance is missing, e.g. vendor deletion;; 2 = mentions gaps;; 1 = unnecessary;; 0 = none.

Synthesis

Chapter 25 tests controls. Chapter 26 applies further methods.

Continue studying — chapter 25 of 40

← Chapter 24 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 26 (draft) →