Chapter 30 — Capstone assessment | Technologist OT, IoT and cyber-physical security

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 30 — Capstone assessment

Lesson map

Lesson 30 published. Map, example, EX088.

flowchart TD
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["30.1 Criteria"]
  N2["30.2 Demonstration"]
  N3["30.3 Questions to prepare for"]
  N4["30.4 Next steps"]
  N5["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5
  N5 --> EX["Worked example"]
  EX --> Q["Exercise EX088"]

Logical drawing

flowchart LR
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["30.1 Criteria"]
  N2["30.2 Demonstration"]
  N3["30.3 Questions to prepare for"]
  N4["30.4 Next steps"]
  N5["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> Q["EX088"]

[Learning outcomes]
    |
    v
[30.1 Criteria]
    |
    v
[30.2 Demonstration]
    |
    v
[30.3 Questions to prepare for]
    |
    v
[30.4 Next steps]
    |
    v
[Synthesis]
    |
    v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX088]

Learning outcomes

You will (1) assess a capstone against its brief and criteria; (2) present results to technical and site audiences; (3) answer questions about limitations; and (4) plan your next learning steps.

30.1 Criteria

The capstone is assessed on: problem fit (does it address an NCS need?), technical correctness (do tests pass and outputs match?), safety and authorization (read-only, no device contact, documented scope), usability (can the site run it?), and honesty (are limitations stated?). Each scored 0–3 with written evidence.

Priya scored herself 3, 3, 3, 2 and 3 on these, with usability at 2 because interpreting VERSION-CONFLICT still needed help. The assessor agreed on every criterion and suggested a plain-language "what to do" column for each status.

The column was added before the final submission.

30.2 Demonstration

Run the tool live from a clean checkout on sample inputs, then show the report from a real (owner-approved, sanitized) week. Narrate one finding from the report to resolution: the drift checker flagged a VERSION-CONFLICT for a logger gateway after a vendor update, and the inventory was corrected.

Priya's narrated finding follows the drift checker's output from VERSION-CONFLICT to a corrected inventory row, the same path PLC-R2's 2.4/2.1 conflict took by hand in Chapter 11. Showing the clean-checkout run first proves the tool works; showing the real week proves the site uses it.

30.3 Questions to prepare for

"What happens if the capture is from the wrong switch?" "How do you know the flow matrix is right?" "What would an attacker who knows about the checker do?" "Who maintains it after you?" Answer with evidence or with "I don't know, and here is how I would find out."

Priya's limitations page already answers two: it names capture placement, a capture from the wrong switch would show none of the PLC traffic, and baseline poisoning, an attacker present during the baseline week would be treated as normal. Her answer to "who maintains it" is the facilities manager, with the operations guide and the 23 tests.

30.4 Next steps

Technologists continue into bachelor's study, vendor or sector certifications, or roles in OT operations. Keep following CISA ICS advisories for the products you support and revisit NIST SP 800-82r3 and the IEC 62443 parts that apply to your role.

For a technologist leaving NCS, the products to follow are the ones in Priya's inventory: the refrigeration PLCs, HMI-C's Windows build and HMI software, GW-LOG and the loggers, and the dock cameras. A CISA advisory naming any of them should lead straight to the asset table, the firmware column and the drift checker's next run.

Worked example (synthetic NCS)

Priya's self-assessment: problem fit 3 (site uses it weekly); correctness 3 (all 23 tests pass from clean checkout); safety 3 (read-only, permit on file); usability 2 (the facilities manager runs it, but interpreting VERSION-CONFLICT still needs help); honesty 3 (limitations page lists capture placement and baseline poisoning). The assessor agrees on every criterion, including usability at 2 for the same reason, and suggests a plain-language "what to do" column.

Synthetic case — Northgate Cold Storage. Scores are illustrative.

Errors and limits

Demonstrations on curated data can hide brittleness; include one messy input. Self-assessment tends to be generous on usability.

Exercises

EX088 — Scoring honesty. What evidence would justify a 3 for honesty? Rubric: 3 = explicit limitations section with specific failure modes and untested areas; 2 = brief caveat; 1 = vague; 0 = none.
EX089 — The attacker question. Draft an answer to "what would an attacker who knows about the checker do?" Rubric: 3 = act between weekly runs or poison baseline/inventory; mitigations; 2 = partial; 1 = denies; 0 = none.
EX090 — The usability fix. Write the "what to do" text for a VERSION-CONFLICT line. Rubric: 3 = plain steps: confirm on device with contractor, update inventory, check advisories; 2 = partial; 1 = jargon; 0 = none.

Synthesis

A capstone assessment checks fit, correctness, safety, usability and honesty — and the best answers to hard questions name limits and next steps.

Continue studying — chapter 30 of 30

← Chapter 29 (draft) · Course chapter index · Worked results ↓ · Next course via chapter index →