◇ OpenCyber Academy
Engineering · Chapter 35 · English

Chapter 35 — Design studio II

Open, free learning for anyone who wants to protect people and technology. No account is required to read this text or its worked answers.

Chapter 35 — Design studio II

Lesson map

Lesson 35 published. Map, example, EX103.

flowchart TD
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["35.1 The brief"]
  N2["35.2 Evidence for choices"]
  N3["35.3 Privacy safeguards"]
  N4["35.4 Presenting"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
  N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
  EX --> Q["Exercise EX103"]

Logical drawing

flowchart LR
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["35.1 The brief"]
  N2["35.2 Evidence for choices"]
  N3["35.3 Privacy safeguards"]
  N4["35.4 Presenting"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX103"]

[Learning outcomes]
    |
    v
[35.1 The brief]
    |
    v
[35.2 Evidence for choices]
    |
    v
[35.3 Privacy safeguards]
    |
    v
[35.4 Presenting]
    |
    v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX103]

Learning outcomes

You will (1) design a security monitoring capability; (2) justify design choices with evidence; (3) present a design to decision-makers.

35.1 The brief

The second design studio asks Lindiwe's team to design security monitoring for Saltmarsh within a fixed annual budget. Options range from an in-house team, which Saltmarsh cannot staff around the clock, to an external managed service. The design must use the detection measures already built, meet the retail customer's twenty-four-hour incident reporting requirement and protect staff privacy as promised in the monitoring notice. The team has eight weeks and must present to a panel acting as the board, with a written design, a cost estimate and a one-page summary.

35.2 Evidence for choices

The team uses evidence gathered across the course: the event rates from the first year, the loop delays measured in control and feedback work and the false alarm calculation from statistics. They estimate alert volumes and the analyst time needed. In-house monitoring would need at least five analysts for continuous cover, which exceeds the budget. A hybrid design, with an external service at night and Saltmarsh staff during the day, fits. They show the calculation in an appendix so the panel can check every step.

35.3 Privacy safeguards

The team designs safeguards: browsing logs visible only to the security team, external analysts seeing pseudonymous account identifiers until an incident is confirmed and quarterly reviews of who accessed logs. Prof. Hale challenges whether pseudonyms slow investigations; the team shows that the mapping can be revealed by an on-call Saltmarsh manager within minutes. Classmates consider this a sensible balance between privacy and response speed. The team writes the safeguards as clauses for the external provider contract, so they are enforceable rather than informal promises.

35.4 Presenting

The team presents to a panel acting as Saltmarsh's board. They lead with the business problem, the twenty-four-hour obligation and night-time gaps, then show options, costs and risks. The panel asks what happens if the external provider misses an alert; the team points to contract terms and monthly sample reviews. Lindiwe learns that decision-makers want consequences and trade-offs explained clearly, with technical detail available but not leading. The panel approves the hybrid design for further costing, and Prof. Hale grades the presentation highly for clarity.

Worked example

Lindiwe's team uses earlier measurements to size monitoring, chooses a hybrid model within budget, adds pseudonymisation with quick reveal and presents risks and costs to a mock board.

Synthetic case. The studio is synthetic.

Errors and limits

Designing monitoring without estimating alert volume leads to understaffed teams.

Exercises

Continue studying — lesson 35 (chapter 35 of 50)

← Chapter 34 · Course chapter index · Chapter 36 →

Continue to the next authored lesson.