Code Red Scenario: University Technology Services Crisis (2001)

University Technology Services: Medium-sized university, 15,000 students, managing campus network infrastructure
Worm β€’ Code Red
STAKES
University operations + Student services + Academic reputation + Network stability
HOOK
It's July 2001. Your university's IT department manages hundreds of Windows servers running IIS web services for academic departments, student services, and research projects. A new automated attack is spreading across the internet, exploiting a buffer overflow vulnerability in Microsoft IIS. The attack is hitting university web servers, defacing academic websites with 'Hacked by Chinese!' messages, and consuming network bandwidth as infected servers scan for new targets.
PRESSURE
Summer session disruption and potential loss of academic credibility - university websites are the public face of the institution
FRONT β€’ 90 minutes β€’ Intermediate
University Technology Services: Medium-sized university, 15,000 students, managing campus network infrastructure
Worm β€’ Code Red
NPCs
  • Dr. Patricia Williams (IT Director): Former Bell Labs engineer managing university technology infrastructure during early internet security crisis, trying to balance academic openness with security\
  • Kevin Zhang (Network Administrator): Recent CS graduate discovering that automated attacks can spread faster than manual response, learning network security under fire\
  • Professor Michael Johnson (Computer Science): Faculty member whose research web server was defaced, demanding explanations about university security practices\
  • Lisa Rodriguez (Student Services Manager): Fielding calls from students unable to access online registration and course materials
SECRETS
  • University policy prioritizes accessibility over security - most servers run with default configurations\
  • IT staff learned about buffer overflows from security mailing lists but haven't implemented patches consistently\
  • Academic culture values open networks and shared resources over strict access controls

Historical Context & Modernization Prompts

Understanding 2001 Technology Context

This scenario represents the actual Code Red worm attack from July 2001. Key historical elements to understand:

  • Internet Infrastructure: Much smaller, primarily academic and corporate networks
  • Security Awareness: Buffer overflow vulnerabilities were poorly understood outside expert circles
  • Patch Management: No automated update systems - all patches applied manually
  • Network Architecture: Flat networks with minimal segmentation or access controls
  • Response Capabilities: No dedicated incident response teams at most organizations

Collaborative Modernization Questions for Players

Present these questions after initial investigation to guide modernization:

  1. β€œHow would this attack work in today’s cloud infrastructure?”
    • Guide toward: API vulnerabilities, container security, multi-tenant isolation
  2. β€œWhat would be the equivalent of β€˜website defacement’ for modern applications?”
    • Guide toward: Data manipulation, service disruption, customer-facing impact
  3. β€œHow has automated scanning and exploitation evolved since 2001?”
    • Guide toward: Modern vulnerability scanners, exploit kits, automated toolchains
  4. β€œWhat would university IT infrastructure look like today?”
    • Guide toward: SaaS services, cloud providers, mobile applications, remote learning
  5. β€œHow would incident response be different with modern tools and practices?”
    • Guide toward: Automated detection, centralized logging, threat intelligence, coordination

Modernization Discovery Process

After historical investigation, facilitate modernization discussion:

  1. Technology Translation: Help players identify modern equivalents to 2001 technology
  2. Attack Vector Evolution: Explore how automated exploitation has advanced
  3. Impact Amplification: Discuss how interconnected systems change incident scope
  4. Response Evolution: Compare 2001 manual response to modern automated capabilities
  5. Scenario Adaptation: Collaboratively develop contemporary version

Learning Objectives

  • Historical Perspective: Understanding how cybersecurity threats have evolved
  • Technology Evolution: Recognizing parallels between historical and modern vulnerabilities
  • Incident Response Development: Appreciating advances in security practices and tools
  • Collaborative Learning: Working together to modernize historical threats for current relevance

IM Facilitation Notes

  • Start Historical: Present the 2001 scenario authentically without modern context
  • Guide Discovery: Use questions to help players discover modern parallels
  • Encourage Creativity: Support player ideas for modernization even if unconventional
  • Maintain Learning Focus: Emphasize what the historical context teaches about current threats
  • Document Evolution: Capture player modernization ideas for future scenario development

This historical foundation approach allows teams to learn from cybersecurity history while developing skills to analyze how threats evolve and adapt to changing technology landscapes.