Ghost Rat Scenario: Metropolitan Research University Theft

Metropolitan Research University: Leading research institution with $200M in annual research funding, 15,000 students
APT • GhostRAT
STAKES
Research intellectual property + Grant funding + Academic collaboration + Scientific competitive advantage
HOOK
Metropolitan Research University is preparing to publish breakthrough medical research that could revolutionize cancer treatment when faculty notice their research workstations occasionally behaving strangely - data files opening without commands, research presentations being accessed during private meetings, and laboratory systems responding to unauthorized inputs. Sophisticated surveillance malware has been providing foreign competitors complete access to cutting-edge academic research.
PRESSURE
Research publication deadline Friday - any theft of intellectual property threatens scientific competitive advantage and millions in research funding
FRONT • 150 minutes • Expert
Metropolitan Research University: Leading research institution with $200M in annual research funding, 15,000 students
APT • GhostRAT
NPCs
  • Dr. Rachel Foster (Research Vice Provost): Overseeing breakthrough medical research, unaware that foreign competitors have been monitoring confidential research meetings and stealing intellectual property through compromised faculty workstations
  • Professor Alan Martinez (Lead Research Scientist): Discovering that confidential research data and scientific methodologies may have been accessed through sophisticated academic surveillance malware
  • Director Lisa Chen (Technology Transfer Office): Investigating potential intellectual property theft as valuable research discoveries and patent applications appear to have been compromised
  • Agent Kevin Park (FBI Economic Espionage Unit): Leading investigation of suspected foreign targeting of university research and systematic theft of American scientific intellectual property
SECRETS
  • Research faculty clicked on sophisticated academic collaboration emails containing convincing scientific documents during breakthrough research development
  • Foreign competitors have had complete remote surveillance of research workstations for months, monitoring confidential meetings and stealing scientific intellectual property
  • Stolen research data and scientific methodologies may have been transferred to foreign research institutions and commercial competitors

Planning Resources

Tip📋 Comprehensive Facilitation Guide Available

For detailed session preparation support, including game configuration templates, investigation timelines, response options matrix, and round-by-round facilitation guidance, see:

Ghost RAT Research University Planning Document

Planning documents provide 30-minute structured preparation for first-time IMs, or quick-reference support for experienced facilitators.

Note🎬 Interactive Scenario Slides

Ready-to-present RevealJS slides with player-safe mode, session tracking, and IM facilitation notes:

Ghost RAT Research University Scenario Slides

Press ‘P’ to toggle player-safe mode • Built-in session state tracking • Dark/light theme support

Scenario Details for IMs

Metropolitan Research University: Academic IP Theft During Publication Deadline

Organization Profile

  • Type: Leading research university conducting federally-funded scientific research across engineering, biomedical sciences, materials science, and applied physics with $200 million annual research portfolio
  • Size: 15,000 students and 2,400 faculty/staff including 450 tenure-track research faculty leading 180 active research projects, 850 graduate research assistants conducting laboratory experiments, 320 postdoctoral researchers, 180 research administration staff managing grant compliance, 95 IT support personnel, and 35 cybersecurity specialists
  • Annual Operations: Managing $200 million in federal research grants from NSF, NIH, DOE, and DARPA requiring strict intellectual property protection, supporting 180 active research projects including breakthrough materials science developing next-generation battery technologies worth estimated $2 billion commercialization potential, coordinating international research collaborations with 40 partner institutions, publishing 800+ peer-reviewed scientific papers annually establishing faculty reputation and securing competitive grant renewals, and maintaining research computing infrastructure processing sensitive experimental data
  • Current Research Crisis: Dr. Sarah Chen’s materials science team discovered breakthrough battery technology enabling 10x energy density improvement—publication deadline Friday in Nature journal establishing priority for patent applications worth $50 million in licensing revenue, but premature disclosure to competitors threatens university’s commercial advantage and researcher’s scientific reputation

Key Assets & Impact

Impossible Decision Framework:

Asset Category 1: Research Intellectual Property & Commercial Licensing - $50M patent licensing potential depends on publication priority, premature disclosure to competitors eliminates first-mover advantage, university technology transfer revenue funds future research programs

Asset Category 2: Federal Grant Funding & Research Reputation - $200M annual research portfolio depends on faculty publication success and IP protection, grant agencies evaluate university’s capability to protect sensitive research, reputation damage affects future competitive proposals

Asset Category 3: International Collaboration & Academic Openness - Research mission requires open scientific exchange with international partners, security controls limiting collaboration threaten academic culture, balance between openness and protection defines university research environment

Immediate Business Pressure: The Friday Publication Deadline

Tuesday Morning, 8:45 AM - Three Days Before Nature Submission:

Dr. Sarah Chen discovered anomalous network traffic from her laboratory workstations. Forensic investigation revealed Ghost-RAT malware providing complete remote surveillance of research activities for past six months—foreign competitors had real-time access to experimental data, research methodologies, and confidential discussions about battery technology breakthrough scheduled for Friday Nature publication.

Premature disclosure threatened patent priority, licensing revenue, and scientific competitive advantage that federal grants depended upon.

Critical Timeline & Operational Deadlines

  • Six months ago: Ghost-RAT infiltration via sophisticated academic collaboration phishing emails
  • Tuesday, 8:45 AM (Session Start): Malware discovery three days before publication
  • Friday, 5:00 PM: Nature submission deadline establishing publication priority for patent applications
  • Post-publication: Patent filing window, licensing negotiations, competitive technology race

Cultural & Organizational Factors

Factor 1: Academic collaboration culture normalized clicking emails from international research partners Factor 2: Open research environment resisted security controls limiting scholarly exchange Factor 3: Grant deadlines created pressure prioritizing research productivity over cybersecurity vigilance Factor 4: International collaboration requirements prevented network segmentation isolating sensitive projects

Operational Context

Universities balance research mission requiring open scientific exchange against federal funding obligations protecting sensitive intellectual property—this tension creates organizational cultures where security controls are perceived as barriers to academic collaboration rather than protections enabling sustainable research programs.

Key Stakeholders

Stakeholder 1: Dr. Sarah Chen - Materials Science Professor Stakeholder 2: Dr. James Park - VP for Research Stakeholder 3: Robert Martinez - Technology Transfer Director Stakeholder 4: Federal Funding Agency Program Officer

Why This Matters

You’re not just removing APT malware from research systems—you’re determining whether academic institutions can protect federally-funded intellectual property while maintaining open research cultures enabling international scientific collaboration.

You’re not just meeting publication deadlines—you’re defining whether research universities accept that foreign competitors surveilled breakthrough discoveries, or delay publication protecting commercial advantage despite scientific priority risks.

You’re not just responding to IP theft—you’re demonstrating whether university security programs can balance academic openness with federal funding obligations requiring sensitive research protection.

IM Facilitation Notes

1. Emphasize IP value—$50M licensing potential makes abstract research theft into concrete financial impact 2. Make publication priority tangible—Friday deadline determines whether university or competitors control breakthrough technology 3. Use academic culture tension to explore resistance to security controls limiting scholarly collaboration 4. Present foreign competitor surveillance as strategic research espionage rather than opportunistic malware 5. Address balance between research openness and IP protection in federal funding context 6. Celebrate security approaches preserving academic collaboration while protecting sensitive research

Opening Presentation

“It’s Tuesday morning at Metropolitan Research University, and faculty are completing final preparations for publishing breakthrough medical research that could revolutionize cancer treatment and secure millions in follow-up funding. But during confidential research meetings, scientists notice troubling signs: workstations performing unauthorized actions, research data files opening automatically, and laboratory equipment responding to commands no one issued. Investigation reveals sophisticated surveillance tools providing foreign competitors complete access to cutting-edge academic research and intellectual property.”

Initial Symptoms to Present:

Warning🚨 Initial User Reports
  • “Research workstations showing signs of remote control during confidential scientific meetings”
  • “Confidential research data being accessed automatically during private faculty collaboration sessions”
  • “Screen surveillance and data theft detected on systems containing breakthrough scientific discoveries”
  • “Network traffic indicating exfiltration of research intellectual property to foreign academic and commercial networks”

Key Discovery Paths:

Detective Investigation Leads:

  • Digital forensics reveal sophisticated foreign academic espionage remote access trojan targeting scientific research
  • University network analysis shows targeted spear-phishing campaign using convincing academic collaboration documents
  • Research intellectual property timeline indicates months of undetected foreign surveillance of breakthrough scientific development

Protector System Analysis:

  • Research workstation monitoring reveals real-time surveillance and theft of confidential scientific data and methodologies
  • Laboratory system assessment shows unauthorized foreign access to research discoveries and patent applications
  • Academic network security analysis indicates coordinated campaign targeting multiple research universities and scientific institutions

Tracker Network Investigation:

  • Command and control traffic analysis reveals foreign academic espionage infrastructure targeting American research institutions
  • Scientific intelligence coordination patterns suggest nation-state and commercial competitor targeting of research intellectual property
  • Research collaboration communication analysis indicates systematic foreign targeting of high-value scientific discoveries

Communicator Stakeholder Interviews:

  • Faculty interviews reveal suspicious computer behavior during confidential research meetings and scientific collaboration
  • Research funding coordination regarding potential compromise of intellectual property and grant applications
  • Academic community coordination with other universities experiencing similar research targeting and intellectual property theft

Mid-Scenario Pressure Points:

  • Hour 1: Major research funding agency discovers potential compromise of breakthrough discoveries affecting future grant awards
  • Hour 2: FBI economic espionage investigation reveals evidence of foreign targeting of American scientific competitive advantage
  • Hour 3: Research intellectual property found on foreign academic networks affecting scientific publication and patent applications
  • Hour 4: Technology transfer assessment indicates potential compromise of multiple valuable scientific discoveries and commercialization opportunities

Evolution Triggers:

  • If investigation reveals research theft, scientific competitive advantage and funding relationships are compromised
  • If surveillance continues, foreign competitors maintain persistent access to breakthrough scientific research
  • If intellectual property theft is confirmed, university research mission and academic collaboration are threatened

Resolution Pathways:

Technical Success Indicators:

  • Complete foreign surveillance removal from research systems with preservation of intellectual property protection evidence
  • Scientific research security verified preventing further unauthorized foreign access to confidential discoveries
  • Foreign espionage infrastructure analysis provides intelligence on coordinated academic targeting and intellectual property theft

Business Success Indicators:

  • Research publication and funding protected through secure forensic handling and intellectual property coordination
  • Academic relationships maintained through professional incident response and research security demonstration
  • Scientific competitive advantage preserved preventing loss of research leadership and commercialization opportunities

Learning Success Indicators:

  • Team understands sophisticated foreign academic espionage capabilities and long-term research targeting operations
  • Participants recognize university research targeting and intellectual property implications of scientific discovery theft
  • Group demonstrates coordination between cybersecurity response and academic research protection requirements

Common IM Facilitation Challenges:

If Foreign Academic Espionage Sophistication Is Underestimated:

“Your malware removal is progressing, but Professor Martinez discovered that foreign competitors have been watching confidential research meetings in real-time for months. How does comprehensive academic surveillance change your intellectual property protection approach?”

If Research Competitive Advantage Implications Are Ignored:

“While you’re cleaning infected systems, Agent Park needs to know: have breakthrough scientific discoveries been transferred to foreign research institutions? How do you coordinate cybersecurity response with economic espionage investigation?”

If Scientific Collaboration Impact Is Overlooked:

“Dr. Foster just learned that research methodologies and patent applications may be in foreign hands. How do you assess the impact on scientific competitive advantage and academic collaboration security?”

Success Metrics for Session:

Template Compatibility

Quick Demo (35-40 min)

  • Rounds: 1
  • Actions per Player: 1
  • Investigation: Guided
  • Response: Pre-defined
  • Focus: Use the “Hook” and “Initial Symptoms” to quickly establish research university espionage crisis. Present the “Guided Investigation Clues” at 5-minute intervals. Offer the “Pre-Defined Response Options” for the team to choose from. Quick debrief should focus on recognizing foreign academic espionage and intellectual property theft implications.

Lunch & Learn (75-90 min)

  • Rounds: 2
  • Actions per Player: 2
  • Investigation: Guided
  • Response: Pre-defined
  • Focus: This template allows for deeper exploration of academic research espionage challenges. Use the full set of NPCs to create realistic publication deadline and research funding pressures. The two rounds allow discovery of intellectual property theft and scientific competitive advantage loss, raising stakes. Debrief can explore balance between cybersecurity response and academic research coordination.

Full Game (120-140 min)

  • Rounds: 3
  • Actions per Player: 2
  • Investigation: Open
  • Response: Creative
  • Focus: Players have freedom to investigate using the “Key Discovery Paths” as IM guidance. They must develop response strategies balancing research publication, intellectual property protection, grant funding relationships, and foreign espionage investigation. The three rounds allow for full narrative arc including surveillance discovery, scientific discovery impact assessment, and FBI economic espionage coordination.

Advanced Challenge (150-170 min)

  • Rounds: 3
  • Actions per Player: 2
  • Investigation: Open
  • Response: Creative
  • Complexity: Add red herrings (e.g., legitimate academic collaboration causing false positives). Make containment ambiguous, requiring players to justify intellectual property decisions with incomplete forensic evidence. Remove access to reference materials to test knowledge recall of APT behavior and research security principles. Include deep coordination with FBI economic espionage unit and potential international research collaboration implications.

Quick Demo Materials (35-40 min)

Guided Investigation Clues

Clue 1 (Minute 5): “Digital forensics reveal sophisticated foreign academic espionage remote access trojan targeting Metropolitan Research University faculty workstations. Security analysis shows foreign competitors maintaining real-time surveillance and theft of breakthrough medical research data and scientific methodologies. Research faculty report workstations performing unauthorized actions during confidential cancer treatment discovery meetings worth millions in research funding.”

Clue 2 (Minute 10): “Timeline analysis indicates academic surveillance maintained for months through spear-phishing campaign using convincing scientific collaboration documents targeting research faculty. Command and control traffic analysis reveals foreign espionage infrastructure coordinating multi-target American university research institution targeting. Intellectual property assessment shows unauthorized access to confidential research discoveries and patent applications affecting scientific competitive advantage and commercialization opportunities.”

Clue 3 (Minute 15): “FBI economic espionage investigation discovers breakthrough research data and scientific methodologies on foreign academic and commercial networks confirming intellectual property theft and foreign competitive advantage. Research funding agency reports concerns about discovery compromise threatening future grant awards and American scientific leadership. Technology transfer assessment indicates potential compromise of multiple valuable scientific discoveries requiring coordinated research security and foreign espionage investigation response.”

Pre-Defined Response Options

Option A: Emergency Research Isolation & FBI Coordination

  • Action: Immediately isolate compromised research systems, coordinate comprehensive FBI economic espionage investigation, conduct intellectual property damage assessment, implement emergency secure protocols for research publication protection.
  • Pros: Completely eliminates foreign surveillance preventing further research theft; demonstrates responsible academic security incident management; maintains funding relationships through transparent FBI coordination.
  • Cons: Research system isolation disrupts publication timeline affecting scientific competitive advantage; FBI investigation requires extensive academic coordination; damage assessment may reveal significant intellectual property compromise.
  • Type Effectiveness: Super effective against APT malmon type; complete foreign surveillance removal prevents continued research monitoring and intellectual property theft.

Option B: Forensic Preservation & Targeted Remediation

  • Action: Preserve FBI investigation evidence while remediating confirmed compromised systems, conduct targeted intellectual property damage assessment, coordinate selective federal notification, implement enhanced monitoring while maintaining research operations.
  • Pros: Balances research publication requirements with FBI investigation; protects critical academic operations; enables focused intellectual property response.
  • Cons: Risks continued foreign surveillance in undetected locations; selective remediation may miss coordinated targeting; forensic requirements may delay research protection.
  • Type Effectiveness: Moderately effective against APT threats; reduces but doesn’t eliminate foreign surveillance presence; delays complete research security restoration.

Option C: Business Continuity & Phased Security Response

  • Action: Implement emergency secure research operations, phase foreign surveillance removal by discovery priority, establish enhanced academic monitoring, coordinate gradual FBI notification while maintaining publication operations.
  • Pros: Maintains critical research publication timeline protecting scientific competitive advantage; enables continued academic operations; supports controlled FBI coordination.
  • Cons: Phased approach extends foreign surveillance timeline; emergency operations may not prevent continued intellectual property theft; gradual notification delays may violate research security requirements.
  • Type Effectiveness: Partially effective against APT malmon type; prioritizes research publication over complete foreign surveillance elimination; doesn’t guarantee intellectual property protection.

Comprehensive Session Materials

Note: Detailed Lunch & Learn, Full Game, and Advanced Challenge materials for this research university scenario follow established patterns with academic-specific adaptations emphasizing research intellectual property protection, FBI economic espionage coordination, grant funding relationships, FERPA student data security, international research collaboration integrity, and scientific competitive advantage preservation. Key adaptations include research publication timing pressures, patent application confidentiality, federal grant reporting requirements, academic freedom vs. security balance, and coordination between university IT, technology transfer office, research faculty, and federal investigators. Materials available upon request or can be extrapolated from defense-contractor scenario with academic research context substitutions.