The document is an assessment report for Psinuvia Inc., a medical device company, conducted by an independent security firm. The report found several physical vulnerabilities, like unlocked server rooms, as well as logical issues like a lack of security policies. It recommends separating compliance and security duties between departments and developing policies to address concerns like password management and mobile device use. It also identifies needed improvements to comply with standards such as PCI DSS, GDPR, and HIPAA. As CTO, the reader must review the report and draft a response outlining how Psinuvia will address the issues.

1. INTRODUCTION Throughout your career in cybersecurity management,
you will be ask
INTRODUCTIONThroughout your career in cybersecurity management, you will be asked to
develop and improve an IT department to support a company’s strategic goals and mission.
Assessments of the organization’s cybersecurity posture will need to be conducted to secure
the company’s information and systems. The organization’s leadership may decide to hire
external consultants to do this assessment. The consultants will review the security policies,
standards, procedures, and guidelines that are used to secure the company’s assets.
Additionally, they will look at compliance issues, personnel roles and assignments,
continuity plans, and overall risk management.In this task, you will analyze an independent
assessment and respond to it in a detailed written report. You will need to read the attached
“Company Overview” and “Independent Security Report” that correspond with the
following scenario.SCENARIOPsinuvia Incorporated is a medical supply company
specializing in wearable and implantable medical devices. Its chief scientist recently left the
organization and returned to St. Petersburg, Russia. During a recent board meeting, the
discussion centered on how the company can improve its operations and secure its
information and information systems. Board members focused on the possibility of an
internal threat from the recently departed chief scientist and the possibility of external
threats. As a result of this meeting, the board decided to have an independent assessment of
the cybersecurity posture of the company. The assessment was completed by Autojor
Security Consultants. This organization uncovered a number of issues with Psinuvia’s
security program and sent a security report detailing what was found. (See the
“Independent Security Report” in the attachments.)As Psinuvia Inc.’s chief technology
officer (CTO), you act as the leader of the cybersecurity department. You are required to
review the report and write Psinuvia’s response to the proposed security improvements.
You must determine the appropriate actions to take, resulting in a plan for fixing the
revealed issues. Your response must be in a written report outlining the ways Psinuvia will
improve security. This report will be given to the board of directors and upper
management, including the chief executive officer (CEO).REQUIREMENTSYour submission
must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of a submission and no
more than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely
paraphrased from sources, even if cited correctly. An originality report is provided when
you submit your task that can be used as a guide.You must use the rubric to direct the

2. creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to
evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric
aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.A.
Describe both the physical vulnerabilities and physical threats that put the security posture
of Psinuvia Inc. at risk. Provide details from the attached “Independent Security Report,”
including how each vulnerability or threat is negatively impacting the security posture of
the company.B. Describe both the logical vulnerabilities and logical threats that put the
security posture of Psinuvia Inc. at risk. Provide details from the attached “Independent
Security Report,” including how each vulnerability or threat is negatively impacting the
security posture of the company.C. Summarize industry standards for securing
organizational assets regarding policies for acceptable use, mobile devices, passwords, and
personally identifiable information (PII), using industry-respected sources to support your
claims.D. List the IT department duties that belong in the Compliance and Risk
Department and the Security Department, as described in part six of the attached
“Independent Security Report,” by organizing them into a chart or table.E. Develop a PCI
DSS-compliant policy to address the concerns in the “Independent Security Report,”
including the roles and responsibilities of each component of the policy.F. Propose
methods for bringing Psinuvia Inc. into compliance with General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR) requirements, including specific examples for how each method will address
international regulations.G. Identify the HIPAA provisions Psinuvia Inc. needs to address,
including the associated consequences for continued noncompliance.H. Develop a business
continuity plan to address the natural disaster described in part four of the “Independent
Security Report.” CISSP best practice should inform execution and maintenance of mission
critical tasks in the business continuity plan for Psinuvia Inc.I. Acknowledge sources, using
in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.J.
Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your
submission.RUBRICA:PHYSICAL VULNERABILITIES AND THREATSNOT EVIDENTThe
submission does not describe both physical vulnerabilities and physical
threats.APPROACHING COMPETENCEThe submission describes both physical
vulnerabilities and physical threats, but the information provided contains errors, or it does
not include details for how each vulnerability or threat is negatively impacting the security
posture of the company, or the information provided contains errors or is not based on the
“Independent Security Report.”COMPETENTThe submission describes both the physical
vulnerabilities and physical threats that put the security posture of Psinuvia Inc. at risk. The
submission provides details from the attached “Independent Security Report” and includes
details for how each vulnerability or threat is negatively impacting the security posture of
the company.B:LOGICAL VULNERABILITIES AND THREATSNOT EVIDENTThe submission
does not describe both logical vulnerabilities and logical threats.APPROACHING
COMPETENCEThe submission describes both logical vulnerabilities and logical threats, but
the information provided contains errors, or it does not include details for how each
vulnerability or threat is negatively impacting the security posture of the company, or the
information provided contains errors or is not based on the “Independent Security
Report.”COMPETENTThe submission describes both the logical vulnerabilities and logical

3. threats that put the security posture of Psinuvia Inc. at risk. The submission provides details
from the attached “Independent Security Report” and includes details for how each
vulnerability or threat is negatively impacting the security posture of the
company.C:POLICIESNOT EVIDENTThe submission does not summarize policies for
acceptable use, mobile devices, passwords, and PII.APPROACHING COMPETENCEThe
submission summarizes policies for acceptable use, mobile devices, passwords, and PII, but
the policies are not industry standard for securing organizational assets. Or the summary
does not provide industry-respected sources to support the claim, or the information
provided contains errors.COMPETENTThe submission accurately summarizes industry
standards for securing organizational assets regarding policies for acceptable use, mobile
devices, passwords, and PII, using industry-respected sources to support the
claims.D:FUNCTIONAL AREASNOT EVIDENTThe submission does not list duties in both
functional areas.APPROACHING COMPETENCEThe submission lists the duties belonging in
both functional areas, but the information provided contains errors or is not organized in a
chart or table.COMPETENTThe submission accurately lists the duties belonging in both
functional areas. The information is organized into a chart or table.E:PCI DSS POLICYNOT
EVIDENTThe submission does not provide a policy.APPROACHING COMPETENCEThe
submission develops a policy, but it is notPCI DSS compliant, or each of the concerns in the
“Independent Security Report” are not addressed. Or the roles and responsibilities are not
included for each component of the adapted PCI DSS policy, or the information provided
contains errors.COMPETENTThe submission develops a PCI DSS–compliant policy that
addresses each of the concerns in the “Independent Security Report.” Roles and
responsibilities are accurate for each component of the adapted PCI DSS policy.F:GDPR
COMPLIANCENOT EVIDENTThe submission does not propose methods for bringing
Psinuvia Inc. into compliance with GDPR requirements.APPROACHING COMPETENCEThe
submission proposes methods for bringing Psinuvia Inc. into compliance with GDPR
requirements, but it does not provide specific examples of how each method will address
international regulations, or the submission contains errors.COMPETENTThe submission
proposes methods for bringing Psinuvia Inc. into compliance with GDPR requirements.
Specific examples are provided for how each method will address international
regulations.G:HIPAA COMPLIANCENOT EVIDENTThe submission does not identify HIPAA
provisions.APPROACHING COMPETENCEThe submission identifies HIPAA provisions, but
the information provided does not address all applicable provisions for Psinuvia Inc., does
not include the associated consequences for noncompliance, or contains
errors.COMPETENTThe submission accurately identifies all applicable HIPAA provisions for
Psinuvia Inc. and includes the associated consequences for noncompliance.H:BUSINESS
CONTINUITYNOT EVIDENTThe submission does not develop a business continuity
plan.APPROACHING COMPETENCEThe submission develops a business continuity plan but
does not address the natural disaster described in part four of the “Independent Security
Report” or does not use CISSP best practice to inform the execution and maintenance of
mission critical tasks in the business continuity plan for Psinuvia Inc. Or the submission
contains inaccuracies.COMPETENTThe submission develops a business continuity plan that
addresses the natural disaster described in part four of the “Independent Security Report.”

4. CISSP best practice informs the execution and maintenance of mission critical tasks in the
business continuity plan for Psinuvia Inc.I:SOURCESNOT EVIDENTThe submission does not
include both in-text citations and a reference list for sources that are quoted, paraphrased,
or summarized.APPROACHING COMPETENCEThe submission includes in-text citations for
sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list; however, the
citations or reference list is incomplete or inaccurate.COMPETENTThe submission includes
in-text citations for sources that are properly quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a
reference list that accurately identifies the author, date, title, and source location as
available. Or the candidate does not use sources.J:PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATIONNOT
EVIDENTContent is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics,
usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the
topic.APPROACHING COMPETENCEContent is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or
contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is
misused or ineffective.COMPETENTContent reflects attention to detail, is organized, and
focuses on the main ideas as prescribed in the task or chosen by the candidate. Terminology
is pertinent, is used correctly, and effectively conveys the intended meaning. Mechanics,
usage, and grammar promote accurate interpretation and understanding.** Cited Sources
must include: the included ISR, PCI DSS, GDPR, and HIPAAAPA but no abstract, please