Honeypots Reflection

Emily Ha 747184

Every review has pointed out the flow of the essay needs to be improved for a more coherent
argument. I had those headings to conform to the requirement of a survey style report. I re-read my
argument and I can see how it breaks the flow due to the headings. This is definitely a valid
statement and I think if I had an "objective" heading that would frame better what I wanted to
achieve in my arguments.

As for the series of quick definitions such as 'honeynets' and 'honeyfarms', I had intended to keep it
simple and defined in one sentence in order to reference it later in my argument.

In defence to peer review 1's comment "Definitions have been introduced with no real motivation,
if I had not defined them at the start, I was worried people would be confused when they read the
following sections.

Also, for not referring to the diagram, that is also a valid comment, although I had efforts in trying to
match the words in my descriptions to the words used in the diagram. Hence, I may have left out
some sentence to direct the reader to focus on a particular part of the diagram.

Addressing the comment "comparisons should not only compare different kinds of itself but also
those similar technologies", I felt like this comment wasn't a very valid point. I did compare it to
honeypots that had cloud abilities and to honeypots had a proactive ability of searching for botnets.
I had made these comparisons as a suggestion that if we implemented these abilities in the
honeymesh, it would make my proposed solution much stronger.

Finally, peer review 1 said my conclusion introduced new information and that I should not be
creating new points. Every concept I used in the conclusion to form and re-state my solution, I had
previously sourced in the "Related works" section. Hence, I don't believe I introduced new
information, I think I offered a new insight and approach on how to solve the problem. Having said
that, I admit that the related works, analysis, comparisons and conclusion sections were so
interlinked and complex, you had to really read the references I sourced in order to understand how
they were linked. Perhaps, reducing the amount of related works would've helped reduce the
complexity of all the latter sections.

Everyone commented on the depth and gave me a 4 or 5 for clarity, so Im really thankful that
overall, people got the point of the essay. Also seemed like people appreciated the advantages and
disadvantages section. I think this was due to the simplicity of it being in bullet points and it was
short.