Legacy Malmon IM Preparation Guide
Quick Start Decision Framework
Choose Your Approach
Historical Foundation Sessions:
- Group wants to understand cybersecurity evolution
- Educational/training setting with learning focus
- Time available: 2+ hours for full historical exploration
- Mixed expertise levels benefit from collaborative discovery
Contemporary Sessions:
- Immediate practical skills needed for current threats
- Time limited: 90 minutes or less
- Group faces specific modern technology challenges
- Advanced technical audience focusing on current techniques
Historical Foundation Session Preparation
Essential Historical Research (15 minutes)
For Code Red (2001)
Technology Context:
- Windows 2000/NT servers with IIS 5.0
- Manual patching - no Windows Update automation
- Basic firewalls and antivirus-only security
- Email-based security notifications
- Limited network monitoring capabilities
Key Historical Details:
- Buffer overflow in IIS indexing service
- Automated scanning and exploitation
- Website defacement with “Hacked by Chinese!” message
- Massive bandwidth consumption from scanning
- July 19, 2001 attack timeline
Period-Appropriate NPCs:
- IT Director (former Bell Labs engineer)
- Recent CS graduate network administrator
- Faculty member whose research site was defaced
- Student services manager handling user complaints
For Stuxnet (2010)
Technology Context:
- Air-gapped SCADA networks considered secure
- Siemens S7 PLCs controlling centrifuges
- USB-based malware propagation
- Limited industrial cybersecurity awareness
- Nation-state cyber capabilities rarely discussed
Key Historical Details:
- Multiple zero-day exploits (4 different vulnerabilities)
- Stolen digital certificates for legitimacy
- Specific targeting of uranium enrichment facilities
- Physical damage to centrifuge equipment
- June 2010 discovery timeline
Period-Appropriate NPCs:
- Nuclear safety director (former NRC official)
- Control systems engineer (Siemens specialist)
- Security manager learning industrial cybersecurity
- Operations supervisor monitoring centrifuges
For Gh0st RAT (2008)
Technology Context:
- Email attachments primary malware delivery
- Basic antivirus signature-based detection
- Limited endpoint monitoring capabilities
- International business conducted via email
- Remote access tools emerging technology
Key Historical Details:
- Sophisticated social engineering with business documents
- Complete remote system control capabilities
- Keylogging and screen capture functionality
- Targeted attacks on trading companies
- March 2008 campaign timeline
Period-Appropriate NPCs:
- Operations director managing trade relationships
- IT manager learning about RAT capabilities
- Trade coordinator handling customer communications
- Finance manager concerned about data access
For Poison Ivy (2005)
Technology Context:
- Email security limited to basic virus scanning
- Marketing agencies not considered high-value targets
- Minimal regulatory compliance requirements
- File sharing via email attachments standard
- Remote administration tools very new concept
Key Historical Details:
- Hidden in legitimate marketing documents
- Complete system access including file transfer
- Targeting creative agencies for client access
- Multi-client compromise through single vector
- September 2005 attack timeline
Period-Appropriate NPCs:
- Creative director managing client relationships
- IT coordinator providing basic system support
- Account manager handling healthcare clients
- Business development director monitoring competition
Historical Session Structure Planning
Phase 1: Historical Context (15 minutes)
Opening Questions:
- “What was cybersecurity like in [year]?”
- “How did organizations handle security incidents?”
- “What tools and processes were available?”
Context Setting:
- Establish technology limitations of the period
- Explain security assumptions that proved wrong
- Set organizational and industry context
Phase 2: Historical Investigation (45 minutes)
Authentic Period Response:
- Use only tools/knowledge available in that time period
- Emphasize manual processes and limited automation
- Show how assumptions led to vulnerabilities
- Demonstrate response challenges with period limitations
Key Constraints to Enforce:
- No modern threat intelligence
- Limited automated detection
- Manual coordination and communication
- Basic forensic capabilities
- Simplified network architectures
Phase 3: Modernization Discovery (30 minutes)
Collaborative Questions:
- “How would this attack work with today’s technology?”
- “What modern defenses would help?”
- “How has business impact changed?”
- “What lessons apply to current threats?”
Guide Players Toward:
- Technology evolution patterns
- Attack technique advancement
- Defensive capability improvements
- Business and regulatory changes
Phase 4: Learning Synthesis (15 minutes)
Reflection Questions:
- “What patterns do you see in threat evolution?”
- “How do historical lessons apply today?”
- “What can we learn from past assumptions?”
- “How might threats continue evolving?”
Historical Foundation IM Preparation Checklist
Research Preparation (15 minutes):
Session Materials:
Facilitation Preparation:
Contemporary Legacy Session Preparation
For comprehensive Contemporary legacy malmon facilitation, see Contemporary Legacy Malmon Facilitation Guide which provides specialized techniques, advanced preparation workflows, and evolution-focused session structures.
Evolutionary Connection Preparation (10-20 minutes)
Core Evolution Stories
Code Red → Cloud Infrastructure Attack:
- Then: Buffer overflow in web servers
- Now: API vulnerability in cloud platforms
- Connection: Automated exploitation at scale
- Learning: How automation amplifies single vulnerabilities
Stuxnet → Smart Grid Sabotage:
- Then: Air-gapped nuclear facility attack
- Now: Cloud-connected renewable energy targeting
- Connection: Nation-state targeting of critical infrastructure
- Learning: How connectivity changes attack possibilities
Gh0st RAT → Corporate Espionage Campaign:
- Then: Email attachments with remote access trojans
- Now: Cloud services and legitimate tools for persistence
- Connection: Long-term access for intelligence gathering
- Learning: How attackers adapt techniques to new technology
Poison Ivy → Supply Chain Infiltration:
- Then: Service provider compromise for client access
- Now: Software supply chain and DevOps targeting
- Connection: Third-party trust relationship exploitation
- Learning: How interconnected systems create cascading risk
Contemporary Session Structure Planning
Phase 1: Evolutionary Context (5 minutes)
Opening Statement:
- “This attack shares DNA with [historical threat]…”
- “Both use [common technique] but adapted for [modern technology]”
- “Understanding the evolution helps us respond more effectively”
Phase 2: Contemporary Response (75 minutes)
Standard Modern Session:
- Use Contemporary scenario card
- Focus on current technology and techniques
- Apply modern incident response capabilities
- Emphasize current business and regulatory context
Phase 3: Historical Comparison (15 minutes)
Debrief Questions:
- “How would this have been different in [historical period]?”
- “What lessons from the historical version apply here?”
- “How has the fundamental attack pattern evolved?”
- “What defensive improvements helped address this threat?”
Contemporary IM Preparation Checklist
Basic Evolution Research (10 minutes):
Enhanced Evolution Research (20 minutes):
Session Materials:
Basic Facilitation Preparation:
Enhanced Facilitation Preparation:
Advanced Preparation Techniques
Group-Specific Adaptations
For Expert-Dominated Groups
Historical Foundation Benefits:
- Reduces expertise advantage through unfamiliar context
- Requires collaborative discovery of historical patterns
- Emphasizes evolution of collective knowledge
- Validates diverse perspectives on threat development
Preparation Additions:
- Research how experts of the period approached these problems
- Prepare questions that challenge current assumptions
- Plan collaborative evolution discussions
- Ready to highlight how expertise builds on historical learning
For Technical Groups
Focus Areas:
- Technical evolution of attack techniques
- Defensive technology advancement
- Architecture and implementation changes
- Tool and process development
Preparation Additions:
- Deep technical details about historical and modern techniques
- Attack pattern analysis and comparison
- Technical defensive evolution timeline
- Advanced tool and technique discussions
For Business/Leadership Groups
Focus Areas:
- Business impact evolution
- Regulatory and compliance changes
- Strategic risk assessment advancement
- Organizational response development
Preparation Additions:
- Business impact historical comparison
- Regulatory evolution timeline
- Strategic risk assessment changes
- Organizational capability development
For Mixed Groups
Balance Requirements:
- Technical evolution accessible to non-technical participants
- Business context relevant to technical participants
- Collaborative discovery benefiting all expertise levels
- Learning that applies across roles and backgrounds
Preparation Additions:
- Multi-perspective evolution questions
- Role-specific learning connections
- Collaborative synthesis activities
- Cross-functional application discussions
Time Management Strategies
Extended Sessions (2+ hours)
Full Historical Foundation:
- Authentic historical investigation (45 minutes)
- Comprehensive modernization discovery (30 minutes)
- Detailed learning synthesis (15 minutes)
- Group reflection and application planning (15 minutes)
Standard Sessions (90 minutes)
Focused Historical Foundation:
- Quick historical context (10 minutes)
- Streamlined historical investigation (30 minutes)
- Guided modernization discovery (20 minutes)
- Learning synthesis (10 minutes)
Short Sessions (60 minutes)
Contemporary with Historical Context:
- Brief evolutionary connection (5 minutes)
- Contemporary response focus (45 minutes)
- Historical comparison debrief (10 minutes)
Common Preparation Mistakes
Historical Context Errors
❌ Using modern knowledge in historical context ✅ Strictly enforce period technology limitations
❌ Assuming historical security practitioners were naive ✅ Respect historical context and available knowledge
❌ Rushing through historical context to get to “real” content ✅ Allow adequate time for authentic historical exploration
Modernization Discovery Errors
❌ Providing modern answers instead of guiding discovery ✅ Use questions to help players discover connections
❌ Overwhelming with technical complexity during evolution ✅ Focus on learnable patterns and accessible insights
❌ Skipping synthesis to save time ✅ Protect learning synthesis time as session priority
Session Success Indicators
Historical Foundation Success
- Players understanding period technology limitations
- Authentic surprise at historical security assumptions
- Collaborative discovery of modernization connections
- “Aha moments” about threat evolution patterns
- Application insights for current cybersecurity work
Contemporary Success
- Clear understanding of evolutionary connection
- Effective response to contemporary threat
- Meaningful historical comparison during debrief
- Recognition of persistent attack patterns
- Enhanced understanding through historical perspective
Quick Reference Cards
Historical Foundation Session Card
Pre-Session (15 min):
- Research period technology context
- Prepare authentic organizational scenario
- Plan modernization discovery questions
Session Structure:
- Historical context setting (15 min)
- Authentic period investigation (45 min)
- Collaborative modernization (30 min)
- Learning synthesis (15 min)
Key Success Factors:
- Enforce period limitations strictly
- Guide discovery through questions
- Protect synthesis discussion time
- Connect learning to current work
Contemporary Session Card
Pre-Session (10 min):
- Understand historical connection
- Prepare brief evolution explanation
- Plan debrief comparison questions
Session Structure:
- Evolutionary context (5 min)
- Contemporary response (75 min)
- Historical comparison (15 min)
Key Success Factors:
- Make evolutionary connection clear
- Focus on current practical skills
- Use debrief for historical insight
- Emphasize persistent patterns
This comprehensive preparation guide ensures IMs can effectively facilitate both Historical Foundation and Contemporary legacy malmon sessions, providing valuable learning experiences that connect cybersecurity history with current practice.