Chapter 25 — Design studio I
Lesson map
Lesson 25 published. Map, example, EX073.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["25.1 The brief"]
N2["25.2 Options"]
N3["25.3 Critique"]
N4["25.4 Final design"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX073"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["25.1 The brief"]
N2["25.2 Options"]
N3["25.3 Critique"]
N4["25.4 Final design"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX073"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[25.1 The brief]
|
v
[25.2 Options]
|
v
[25.3 Critique]
|
v
[25.4 Final design]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX073]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) design a security improvement under constraints; (2) present options to stakeholders; (3) iterate a design from critique.
25.1 The brief
The design studio brief asks Lindiwe's team to secure remote access for Saltmarsh's depot supervisors, who currently connect from home using passwords alone. Constraints include a small budget, supervisors with little technical experience and the retail customer's requirement for a second factor. The team must deliver a design, a cost estimate and a rollout plan within six weeks. Prof. Hale plays the client and challenges each assumption the team makes. The team has four members, each leading one part of the work: design, cost, rollout and documentation.
25.2 Options
The team develops three options: a virtual private network with app-based codes, a web portal with hardware keys and a managed remote desktop service with built-in multi-factor authentication. They compare cost, security, ease of use and support burden. The portal with hardware keys resists phishing best but needs keys posted to supervisors. The virtual private network is familiar but gives broad network access once connected, which conflicts with least privilege. The team records the scores for each option in a shared table, so the client can see how each judgement was reached.
25.3 Critique
At the mid-point review, Prof. Hale asks what happens when a supervisor loses a key on a Friday evening. The team has no answer. They add a recovery process using a second registered key kept at home and a verified call to the service desk. Classmates also point out that the remote desktop option depends on one supplier. The team records these points and revises their scoring of each option. They also interview two supervisors about their home setups, learning that one shares a computer with family members.
25.4 Final design
The team recommends the web portal with two hardware keys per supervisor, access only to the applications supervisors need and a documented recovery process. They estimate the cost per supervisor and a four-week rollout by depot. Prof. Hale praises the recovery process as the part most designs forget. Lindiwe reflects that critique improved the design more than any single technical choice, because it exposed situations nobody had imagined. The client accepts the design, and Saltmarsh's security lead asks to use the recovery process as a template for other services.
Worked example
Lindiwe's team compares three remote access options, adds a recovery process after critique and recommends a portal with two hardware keys per supervisor.
Synthetic case. The studio brief is synthetic.
Errors and limits
A strong authentication design without a recovery process fails at the first lost key.
Exercises
- EX073 — Studio constraints. Name one constraint of the brief. Rubric: 3 = small budget;; 2 = one;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX074 — VPN drawback. What drawback does the VPN option have? Rubric: 3 = broad network access once connected;; 2 = partly correct;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX075 — Recovery process. What recovery process is added? Rubric: 3 = second key at home and verified call;; 2 = partly correct;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
Continue studying — lesson 25 (chapter 25 of 50)
← Chapter 24 · Course chapter index · Chapter 26 →
Continue to the next authored lesson.