Litter Drifter Scenario: Aegis Defense Systems Espionage
Planning Resources
Scenario Details for IMs
Aegis Defense Systems: Military Contract Crisis During Reconnaissance System Delivery
Organization Profile
- Type: Defense contractor specializing in tactical reconnaissance systems, electronic warfare countermeasures, and military intelligence platforms for U.S. Department of Defense and allied military forces
- Size: 320 employees including 180 aerospace and electrical engineers developing classified surveillance technologies, 60 systems integration specialists managing prototype testing and field deployment validation, 35 cybersecurity and IT infrastructure personnel maintaining classified network infrastructure, 25 program management staff coordinating defense contract deliverables and military customer requirements, 15 quality assurance engineers conducting Department of Defense certification testing, and 5 counterintelligence security officers enforcing facility clearance protocols
- Annual Operations: Managing $280 million in active defense contracts across 12 military programs supporting tactical operations in Europe, Middle East, and Pacific theaters, developing advanced reconnaissance drone payloads providing real-time battlefield intelligence for forward-deployed units, maintaining TOP SECRET facility clearance requiring stringent physical security controls and classified information protection protocols, supporting Ukrainian military forces through $80 million reconnaissance system delivery enabling artillery targeting precision during active combat operations, coordinating prototype deployments with U.S. European Command and NATO partner forces, and operating specialized air-gapped engineering networks physically isolated from internet connectivity to protect classified design specifications
- Current Contract Crisis: Military contract delivery deadline Tuesday for reconnaissance system supporting Ukrainian artillery operations—$80 million contract represents 29% of Aegis annual revenue, system delays directly impact active combat effectiveness, but USB worm infiltration discovered Monday threatens both delivery timeline and classified information protection obligations requiring Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency notification
Key Assets & Impact
Asset Category 1: Military Contract Performance & Revenue Concentration - $80M Ukrainian reconnaissance contract represents 29% annual revenue, Tuesday delivery deadline determines contract payment milestone, delays trigger penalty clauses and future bid evaluation impacts
Asset Category 2: Classified Technology Protection & National Security - Reconnaissance system designs classified TOP SECRET, USB worm exfiltration threatens military capability disclosure to adversaries, counterintelligence obligations require DCSA notification potentially halting all operations
Asset Category 3: Ukrainian Combat Support & Allied Military Effectiveness - Artillery units depend on reconnaissance system for targeting precision, delivery delays reduce combat effectiveness during active operations, allied confidence in U.S. defense industrial base affected by reliability failures
Immediate Business Pressure
Monday Morning, 8:15 AM - 30 Hours Before Military Delivery:
Program Director Colonel (Ret.) Sarah Martinez discovered USB worm infiltration across Aegis engineering workstations. LitterDrifter malware—nation-state espionage tool specifically targeting defense contractors supporting Ukrainian military operations—had systematically collected reconnaissance system designs, electronic warfare countermeasure specifications, and classified deployment protocols for past six weeks.
The $80 million contract delivery was scheduled Tuesday afternoon at 2:00 PM. Ukrainian artillery commanders were waiting for reconnaissance systems enabling precision targeting during active combat operations in eastern theater. Any delivery delay reduced operational effectiveness and allied confidence in U.S. military support commitments.
But Defense Security Service regulations required immediate counterintelligence notification of classified information compromise—triggering federal investigation potentially suspending all Aegis operations until espionage damage assessment completed.
Critical Timeline & Operational Deadlines
- Six weeks ago: LitterDrifter infiltration via targeted USB devices mailed to defense engineers
- Monday, 8:15 AM (Session Start): Malware discovery during pre-delivery security validation
- Tuesday, 2:00 PM: Military contract delivery deadline, $80M payment milestone
- Post-discovery: DCSA counterintelligence notification obligations, federal investigation protocols
Cultural & Organizational Factors
Factor 1: Defense engineers routinely used USB devices for air-gapped network data transfers, normalizing removable media despite security policies
Factor 2: Contract delivery pressure prioritized engineering productivity over strict USB security enforcement
Factor 3: Classified network air-gapping created false confidence that physical isolation provided adequate protection
Factor 4: Military customer relationship emphasis discouraged delivery delays even when security concerns arose
Operational Context
Defense contractors operate under National Industrial Security Program regulations enforcing classified information protection through facility clearances, personnel security protocols, and counterintelligence cooperation obligations—these requirements create legal imperatives beyond commercial contract performance where national security protection takes absolute priority over business considerations or customer relationship preservation.
Key Stakeholders
Stakeholder 1: Colonel (Ret.) Sarah Martinez - Program Director Stakeholder 2: James Chen - Chief Engineer Stakeholder 3: Robert Taylor - CEO Stakeholder 4: Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency Investigator
Why This Matters
You’re not just removing USB worms from defense contractor networks—you’re determining whether military contract delivery obligations override classified information protection when espionage discovery threatens both customer support and counterintelligence reporting requirements.
You’re not just meeting defense contract deadlines—you’re defining whether defense industrial base reliability means delivering potentially compromised systems to allied forces, or accepting delivery failures protecting classified capability disclosure.
IM Facilitation Notes
1. Emphasize dual stakes—Ukrainian combat effectiveness AND U.S. classified technology protection both at risk
2. Make contract value tangible—$80M represents 29% annual revenue creating genuine business survival pressure
3. Use military delivery deadline to create authentic tension between customer support and security obligations
4. Present USB worm as deliberate nation-state targeting of Ukrainian defense support supply chains
5. Address defense contractor responsibility balancing contract performance against counterintelligence cooperation
6. Celebrate transparent counterintelligence reporting despite contract delivery and business relationship impacts
Opening Presentation
“It’s Friday morning at Aegis Defense Systems, and the company is completing final testing of advanced reconnaissance systems for military deployment on Tuesday - an $80 million defense contract representing years of classified development work. But security teams have discovered something alarming: USB-propagating malware specifically designed to target defense contractors supporting Ukrainian military operations. This isn’t ordinary malware - it’s sophisticated nation-state espionage systematically collecting intelligence on military technology development and strategic defense capabilities.”
Initial Symptoms to Present:
Key Discovery Paths:
Detective Investigation Leads:
Protector System Analysis:
Tracker Network Investigation:
Communicator Stakeholder Interviews:
Mid-Scenario Pressure Points:
- Hour 1: Pentagon security officials discover potential compromise of classified reconnaissance delivery affecting military readiness
- Hour 2: Counterintelligence investigation reveals evidence of nation-state targeting of Ukrainian defense support programs
- Hour 3: Classified military technology found on nation-state intelligence networks affecting strategic defense capabilities
- Hour 4: Defense Security Service assessment indicates potential compromise of multiple military contractor programs
Evolution Triggers:
- If investigation reveals military technology transfer, national security enforcement action affects defense industry and geopolitical posture
- If nation-state surveillance continues, adversaries maintain persistent access for long-term classified intelligence collection on Ukrainian support
- If reconnaissance system theft is confirmed, military operational security and strategic defense capabilities are compromised
Resolution Pathways:
Technical Success Indicators:
- Complete nation-state worm removal from classified engineering systems with preservation of counterintelligence evidence
- Military reconnaissance technology security verified preventing further unauthorized nation-state access
- Foreign espionage infrastructure analysis provides intelligence on coordinated defense industrial targeting and geopolitical strategy
Business Success Indicators:
- Classified military delivery protected through secure forensic handling and counterintelligence coordination with defense agencies
- Defense contract relationships maintained through professional incident response and security demonstration to Pentagon
- National security compliance demonstrated preventing defense security penalties and clearance revocation
Learning Success Indicators:
- Team understands sophisticated nation-state espionage capabilities and long-term defense industrial targeting through USB propagation
- Participants recognize geopolitical targeting and national security implications of classified military technology theft
- Group demonstrates coordination between cybersecurity response and counterintelligence investigation requirements for defense contractors
Common IM Facilitation Challenges:
If Nation-State Sophistication Is Underestimated:
“Your USB malware removal is progressing, but Agent Rodriguez discovered that nation-state adversaries have been systematically collecting reconnaissance technology for months through geopolitical targeting. How does sophisticated foreign intelligence change your counterintelligence approach?”
If Geopolitical Implications Are Ignored:
“While you’re cleaning infected systems, Colonel Mitchell needs to know: have classified reconnaissance systems been transferred to nation-state adversaries targeting Ukrainian defense support? How do you coordinate cybersecurity response with counterintelligence investigation?”
If Military Technology Impact Is Overlooked:
“Dr. Peterson just learned that reconnaissance specifications may be in nation-state hands affecting strategic military capabilities. How do you assess the national security impact of stolen classified defense technology?”
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 nation-state defense contractor 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 nation-state targeting and military technology security 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 geopolitical defense contractor espionage challenges. Use the full set of NPCs to create realistic military delivery and counterintelligence pressures. The two rounds allow discovery of reconnaissance technology theft and Ukrainian support targeting, raising stakes. Debrief can explore balance between cybersecurity response and national security 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 classified military delivery, reconnaissance technology protection, counterintelligence coordination, and national security obligations. The three rounds allow for full narrative arc including nation-state discovery, military technology impact assessment, and Pentagon security coordination.
Advanced Challenge (150-170 min)
- Rounds: 3
- Actions per Player: 2
- Investigation: Open
- Response: Creative
- Complexity: Add red herrings (e.g., legitimate defense engineering causing false positives). Make containment ambiguous, requiring players to justify counterintelligence decisions with incomplete classified information about geopolitical targeting. Remove access to reference materials to test knowledge recall of nation-state behavior and defense security principles. Include deep coordination with counterintelligence agencies and Ukrainian support implications.
Quick Demo Materials (35-40 min)
Guided Investigation Clues
Clue 1 (Minute 5): “Digital forensics reveal sophisticated nation-state USB-propagating worm (Litter Drifter) targeting Aegis Defense Systems’ classified reconnaissance development workstations. Security analysis shows foreign intelligence systematically collecting military technology specifications through USB devices affecting defense contractors supporting Ukrainian operations. Defense engineers report USB malware spreading automatically during $80M reconnaissance system development affecting military readiness.”
Clue 2 (Minute 10): “Counterintelligence timeline indicates nation-state surveillance maintained for months through targeted USB devices distributed to defense industrial base. Command and control traffic analysis reveals geopolitical espionage infrastructure coordinating multi-target defense contractor intelligence collection supporting foreign strategic interests. Classified system assessment shows unauthorized access to reconnaissance specifications and military technology affecting Ukrainian defense support and operational capabilities.”
Clue 3 (Minute 15): “Pentagon counterintelligence investigation discovers classified reconnaissance designs on nation-state intelligence networks confirming military technology transfer affecting strategic defense capabilities. Defense Security Service reports potential compromise of Ukrainian support programs threatening geopolitical military partnerships. Military security assessment indicates coordinated nation-state targeting of multiple defense contractors requiring immediate counterintelligence response and Pentagon security coordination.”
Pre-Defined Response Options
Option A: Emergency Classified Isolation & Counterintelligence Coordination
- Action: Immediately isolate compromised classified engineering systems from USB propagation, coordinate comprehensive counterintelligence investigation with defense security agencies, conduct classified damage assessment for reconnaissance technology exposure, implement emergency security protocols for military delivery protection and Pentagon notification.
- Pros: Completely eliminates nation-state worm preventing further military technology theft through USB propagation; demonstrates responsible national security incident management; maintains defense contract relationships through transparent counterintelligence coordination.
- Cons: Classified system isolation disrupts reconnaissance delivery schedule affecting military readiness; counterintelligence investigation requires extensive defense security coordination with Pentagon; damage assessment may reveal significant classified technology compromise affecting geopolitical partnerships.
- Type Effectiveness: Super effective against APT malmon type; complete nation-state worm removal prevents continued classified surveillance and military technology theft through USB propagation.
Option B: Forensic Preservation & Targeted Remediation
- Action: Preserve counterintelligence evidence while remediating confirmed compromised systems, conduct targeted classified damage assessment, coordinate selective federal notification with defense agencies, implement enhanced monitoring while maintaining classified delivery operations.
- Pros: Balances classified delivery requirements with counterintelligence investigation; protects critical defense contractor operations; enables focused national security response.
- Cons: Risks continued nation-state surveillance in undetected USB propagation locations; selective remediation may miss coordinated targeting; forensic requirements may delay classified technology protection and military delivery.
- Type Effectiveness: Moderately effective against APT threats; reduces but doesn’t eliminate nation-state presence through USB propagation; delays complete classified security restoration and military readiness.
Option C: Business Continuity & Phased Security Response
- Action: Implement emergency secure reconnaissance development environment isolated from USB threats, phase nation-state worm removal by military system priority, establish enhanced classified monitoring, coordinate gradual counterintelligence notification while maintaining defense operations.
- Pros: Maintains critical classified military delivery schedule protecting strategic defense capabilities; enables continued defense contracting operations; supports controlled federal coordination and Pentagon notification.
- Cons: Phased approach extends nation-state surveillance timeline through continued USB propagation; emergency operations may not prevent continued classified technology theft; gradual notification delays may violate defense security requirements and affect geopolitical partnerships.
- Type Effectiveness: Partially effective against APT malmon type; prioritizes military delivery over complete nation-state elimination through USB propagation; doesn’t guarantee classified technology protection or strategic security.
Lunch & Learn Materials (75-90 min, 2 rounds)
Round 1: Nation-State Discovery & Military Technology Assessment (35-40 min)
Investigation Clues (Time-Stamped)
Minute 0-5 (Opening):
- Security alert: USB devices showing automated propagation behavior across defense contractor engineering workstations
- Classified reconnaissance system specifications accessed through unauthorized means during final military delivery preparations
- Network traffic patterns indicating potential data exfiltration to external command infrastructure
Minute 10 (Detective Path):
- Digital forensics identify sophisticated USB-propagating worm (Litter Drifter) with nation-state tradecraft indicators
- Malware designed specifically to target defense industrial base with Ukrainian support program detection capabilities
- Timeline analysis reveals potential months of undetected presence in classified engineering environments
Minute 15 (Protector Path):
- Defense contractor workstation monitoring reveals systematic file access patterns targeting reconnaissance technology specifications
- Classified system logs show unauthorized data collection from military technology development servers
- USB propagation patterns indicate coordinated campaign affecting multiple defense contractor programs
Minute 20 (Tracker Path):
- Command and control infrastructure analysis reveals nation-state espionage network with geopolitical targeting
- Exfiltration patterns suggest intelligence collection focused on Ukrainian defense support and military reconnaissance capabilities
- Network traffic correlates with known foreign intelligence operations targeting defense industrial base
Minute 25 (Communicator Path):
- Defense engineer Rachel Kowalski reports suspicious USB behavior during classified system testing over past 3 months
- Security Clearance Officer Dr. Peterson identifies potential foreign intelligence collection affecting multiple classified programs
- Colonel Mitchell expresses urgent concern about reconnaissance delivery schedule and Pentagon notification requirements
Response Options (With Detailed Trade-offs)
Option A: Emergency Classified Isolation & Full Counterintelligence Coordination
- Immediate Actions: Isolate all compromised classified engineering systems, initiate comprehensive counterintelligence investigation, conduct classified damage assessment
- Timeline Impact: Military delivery delayed 2-3 weeks for complete forensic analysis and security verification
- Stakeholder Reactions:
- Colonel Mitchell: Concerned about Pentagon delivery timeline but supports national security priority
- Dr. Peterson: Strongly supports comprehensive counterintelligence investigation and federal coordination
- Agent Rodriguez: Emphasizes complete evidence preservation for foreign intelligence investigation
- Type Effectiveness: SUPER EFFECTIVE - Complete APT removal prevents continued nation-state surveillance and military technology theft
Option B: Forensic Preservation & Targeted Remediation
- Immediate Actions: Preserve counterintelligence evidence, remediate confirmed compromised systems, conduct targeted classified damage assessment
- Timeline Impact: Partial delivery delay (5-7 days) while maintaining critical reconnaissance development operations
- Stakeholder Reactions:
- Colonel Mitchell: Appreciates balance between delivery and security requirements
- Rachel Kowalski: Can continue critical engineering work with enhanced monitoring
- Agent Rodriguez: Concerned about potential nation-state surveillance in undetected locations
- Type Effectiveness: MODERATELY EFFECTIVE - Reduces nation-state presence but may not achieve complete elimination
Option C: Business Continuity & Phased Security Response
- Immediate Actions: Implement emergency secure development environment, phase worm removal by military priority, establish enhanced monitoring
- Timeline Impact: Minimal delivery delay (1-2 days) with ongoing security remediation
- Stakeholder Reactions:
- Colonel Mitchell: Strongly supports maintaining delivery schedule and strategic defense capabilities
- Dr. Peterson: Serious concerns about inadequate counterintelligence response and defense security compliance
- Agent Rodriguez: Warns that phased approach may violate federal reporting requirements
- Type Effectiveness: PARTIALLY EFFECTIVE - Prioritizes delivery over complete nation-state elimination
Round 1 Pressure Events
Minute 15: Pentagon security officials request status update on reconnaissance delivery timeline and security posture
Minute 25: Defense Security Service initiates inquiry about potential classified technology compromise affecting Ukrainian support programs
Minute 30: Colonel Mitchell receives call from military procurement - $80M contract has strategic importance for operational readiness
Round 1 Facilitation Questions
- “How do you balance classified military delivery urgency against comprehensive counterintelligence investigation requirements?”
- “What classified technology exposure assessment is needed before Pentagon notification?”
- “How does nation-state targeting of Ukrainian defense support programs affect your response strategy?”
- “What defense security compliance obligations apply to this foreign intelligence collection incident?”
Round 1 Transition to Round 2
Based on team’s chosen response path…
If Emergency Isolation Chosen: “Your emergency classified isolation has halted nation-state surveillance, but forensic analysis is revealing the extent of reconnaissance technology exposure. Defense Security Service counterintelligence investigation has discovered something alarming about the scope of military technology theft and geopolitical targeting…”
If Targeted Remediation Chosen: “Your forensic preservation is protecting critical evidence, but continued monitoring is detecting ongoing nation-state activity in unexpected locations. Agent Rodriguez has discovered intelligence indicating systematic targeting of multiple defense contractors supporting Ukrainian operations…”
If Business Continuity Chosen: “Your secure development environment is maintaining delivery schedule, but Dr. Peterson has identified serious defense security compliance concerns. Pentagon counterintelligence coordination is revealing that reconnaissance specifications may already be in nation-state hands…”
Round 2: Military Technology Impact & Pentagon Coordination (35-45 min)
Investigation Clues (Time-Stamped)
Minute 40 (Critical Discovery):
- Counterintelligence investigation reveals classified reconnaissance designs found on nation-state intelligence networks
- Forensic timeline indicates systematic military technology theft over 6-month period through USB propagation
- Defense Security Service assessment shows potential compromise of Ukrainian support programs affecting geopolitical partnerships
Minute 50 (Escalation):
- Pentagon security officials confirm multiple defense contractors experiencing similar nation-state targeting
- Classified damage assessment reveals reconnaissance system capabilities and specifications transferred to foreign intelligence
- Military operational security concerns about strategic defense technology in adversary hands
Minute 55 (Stakeholder Pressure):
- Colonel Mitchell faces Pentagon inquiry about delivery timeline and classified technology protection
- Dr. Peterson must coordinate federal reporting under defense security requirements
- Rachel Kowalski reports engineering team morale concerns and security clearance review implications
Minute 65 (Final Pressure):
- Military contract office considering whether reconnaissance delivery can proceed given nation-state compromise
- Defense Security Service requires comprehensive incident report and remediation verification
- Counterintelligence agencies assess geopolitical implications of Ukrainian support program targeting
Response Options for Final Resolution
Option A: Complete Nation-State Elimination & Pentagon Security Demonstration
- Actions: Full classified system rebuild with counterintelligence verification, comprehensive military technology damage assessment, transparent Pentagon coordination
- Business Impact: Significant delivery delay (3-4 weeks) but maintains long-term defense contract relationships and security clearance status
- National Security Impact: Demonstrates responsible classified incident management and defense industrial base security
- Learning Focus: Understanding nation-state sophistication and defense contractor obligations to military operational security
Option B: Verified Remediation & Accelerated Delivery Recovery
- Actions: Complete confirmed worm removal with counterintelligence oversight, targeted reconnaissance technology security verification, expedited Pentagon notification
- Business Impact: Moderate delivery delay (1-2 weeks) with intensive coordination to resume military operations
- National Security Impact: Balances classified delivery requirements with counterintelligence investigation needs
- Learning Focus: Navigating defense security compliance while maintaining strategic military capabilities
Option C: Risk Acceptance & Enhanced Monitoring Approach
- Actions: Document residual nation-state risk, implement enhanced classified monitoring, maintain delivery schedule with security caveats
- Business Impact: Minimal delivery delay but potential long-term defense security concerns and contract relationship risks
- National Security Impact: May violate defense security requirements and affect geopolitical partnerships
- Learning Focus: Understanding consequences of inadequate response to nation-state targeting of classified military programs
Victory Conditions
Technical Victory:
- Complete nation-state worm removal from classified engineering systems with preservation of counterintelligence evidence
- Military reconnaissance technology security verified preventing further unauthorized nation-state access
- Foreign espionage infrastructure analyzed providing intelligence on defense industrial targeting
Business Victory:
- Classified military delivery protected through secure forensic handling and Pentagon coordination
- Defense contract relationships maintained through professional incident response
- National security compliance demonstrated preventing defense security penalties
Learning Victory:
- Team understands sophisticated nation-state espionage capabilities and long-term defense industrial targeting
- Participants recognize geopolitical implications of classified military technology theft
- Group demonstrates coordination between cybersecurity response and counterintelligence investigation
Debrief Topics (15-20 min)
Nation-State Sophistication: How did Litter Drifter’s USB propagation capabilities enable months of undetected classified surveillance?
Geopolitical Targeting: Why do nation-state adversaries target defense contractors supporting Ukrainian military operations?
Defense Security Obligations: What federal reporting and counterintelligence coordination requirements apply to classified technology compromise?
Business Impact Balance: How do you weigh military delivery urgency against comprehensive security investigation?
Long-term Implications: What strategic defense and national security consequences result from reconnaissance technology in adversary hands?
Full Game Materials (120-140 min, 3 rounds)
Round 1: Initial Nation-State Detection (30-35 min)
Open Investigation Framework
Detective Investigation Options:
- Analyze USB device forensics for nation-state malware indicators and propagation mechanisms
- Investigate classified network logs for unauthorized reconnaissance technology access patterns
- Research Litter Drifter attribution and known defense industrial base targeting campaigns
- Examine digital forensics for foreign intelligence collection and exfiltration methods
Protector System Analysis Options:
- Assess defense contractor workstation security for systematic military technology theft indicators
- Evaluate classified system integrity and reconnaissance specification protection
- Monitor USB propagation patterns affecting multiple engineering workstations
- Review defense security controls for nation-state persistence mechanisms
Tracker Network Investigation Options:
- Trace command and control infrastructure for nation-state espionage network identification
- Analyze exfiltration patterns for classified technology and Ukrainian support program targeting
- Investigate network traffic for geopolitical intelligence collection coordination
- Map foreign intelligence infrastructure connections to known adversary operations
Communicator Stakeholder Interviews:
- Interview defense engineers about suspicious USB behavior during classified development
- Coordinate with Colonel Mitchell on military delivery priorities and Pentagon expectations
- Consult with Dr. Peterson on defense security requirements and clearance implications
- Engage Agent Rodriguez on counterintelligence investigation protocols and federal coordination
NPC Interactions (Realistic Conflicts)
Colonel Mitchell (Defense Program Manager - Ret.):
- Priority: Maintain $80M reconnaissance delivery schedule - military readiness depends on Tuesday completion
- Concern: Pentagon inquiry about security posture and classified technology protection
- Conflict: Pushes for business continuity approach to avoid delivery delays affecting strategic defense capabilities
- Information: Reconnaissance systems represent years of classified development and critical military operational needs
Dr. James Peterson (Security Clearance Officer):
- Priority: Defense security compliance and federal reporting requirements for classified technology compromise
- Concern: Security clearance implications for engineering staff and defense contractor certification
- Conflict: Demands comprehensive counterintelligence investigation regardless of delivery timeline impact
- Information: Defense Security Service has specific protocols for foreign intelligence collection incidents
Rachel Kowalski (Senior Systems Engineer):
- Priority: Engineering team safety and classified development work continuity
- Concern: USB security practices and potential exposure of reconnaissance specifications
- Conflict: Caught between delivery pressure and security clearance review concerns
- Information: Engineers have been using USB devices for classified file transfers for months - standard practice
Agent Lisa Rodriguez (Counterintelligence Specialist):
- Priority: Evidence preservation for foreign intelligence investigation and attribution
- Concern: Geopolitical implications of Ukrainian defense support program targeting
- Conflict: Federal investigation requirements may conflict with business continuity needs
- Information: Intelligence indicates coordinated nation-state campaign targeting multiple defense contractors
Round 1 Pressure Events
Minute 10: Security alert - additional engineering workstations showing USB propagation indicators during forensic investigation
Minute 20: Pentagon security office requests immediate status report on reconnaissance delivery and classified technology protection
Minute 25: Defense Security Service notification requirement triggers - federal reporting deadline in 24 hours for classified compromise
Round 1 Facilitation Questions
- “What forensic evidence do you need before determining the scope of nation-state surveillance?”
- “How do you assess whether reconnaissance specifications have been exfiltrated to foreign intelligence?”
- “What immediate containment actions balance military delivery urgency with counterintelligence preservation?”
- “How do you coordinate with multiple stakeholders who have conflicting but legitimate defense priorities?”
Round 2: Military Technology Compromise Assessment (40-50 min)
Open Investigation Continuation
Detective Deep Dive:
- Conduct comprehensive forensic timeline of nation-state surveillance and classified data access
- Analyze foreign intelligence collection targeting Ukrainian defense support programs
- Investigate reconnaissance technology specifications exposed through systematic espionage
- Examine USB propagation vectors and nation-state persistence across defense industrial base
Protector Impact Analysis:
- Assess classified system compromise extent affecting reconnaissance capabilities and military technology
- Evaluate defense security controls failures enabling months of undetected surveillance
- Review USB device management practices and classified network segmentation
- Analyze potential operational security impact of reconnaissance designs in adversary hands
Tracker Intelligence Correlation:
- Map nation-state command infrastructure to known foreign intelligence operations
- Correlate exfiltration timing with geopolitical events and Ukrainian conflict escalation
- Investigate multi-target defense contractor targeting patterns indicating coordinated campaign
- Analyze threat intelligence for Litter Drifter attribution and strategic objectives
Communicator Crisis Management:
- Coordinate Pentagon notification and military contract implications
- Manage Defense Security Service reporting and counterintelligence investigation cooperation
- Address engineering team security clearance concerns and morale during federal investigation
- Facilitate counterintelligence agency coordination for geopolitical assessment
NPC Evolution (Escalating Conflicts)
Colonel Mitchell (Under Pentagon Pressure):
- New Development: Military procurement officer questions whether delivery can proceed given nation-state compromise
- Escalated Concern: Strategic defense capabilities at risk - operational readiness depends on reconnaissance systems
- Increased Conflict: Demands clear timeline for security verification to salvage Tuesday delivery or minimize delay
- Critical Information: Pentagon considering alternative contractors if Aegis cannot deliver secure systems
Dr. Peterson (Federal Compliance Crisis):
- New Development: Defense Security Service initiates formal classified technology compromise investigation
- Escalated Concern: Security clearance suspensions possible for engineering staff during counterintelligence review
- Increased Conflict: Federal reporting requires disclosure of full reconnaissance specification exposure
- Critical Information: Similar incidents at other contractors resulted in contract terminations and clearance revocations
Rachel Kowalski (Engineering Team Under Review):
- New Development: Engineers facing security clearance interviews about USB device usage and classified handling
- Escalated Concern: Team morale collapsing - fear of career damage and clearance loss affecting productivity
- Increased Conflict: Defensive about standard USB practices - “everyone does this” mentality
- Critical Information: Multiple engineers received suspicious USB devices from “trusted” defense industry contacts
Agent Rodriguez (Geopolitical Intelligence):
- New Development: Intelligence confirms classified reconnaissance designs found on nation-state networks
- Escalated Concern: Ukrainian support programs systematically targeted - geopolitical implications for military partnerships
- Increased Conflict: Federal investigation taking priority over business continuity - evidence preservation critical
- Critical Information: Nation-state adversaries now have strategic intelligence on US reconnaissance capabilities
Round 2 Pressure Events
Minute 45: Counterintelligence investigation discovers reconnaissance specifications on foreign intelligence networks - confirmed technology transfer
Minute 55: Pentagon security officials arrive on-site for classified damage assessment and security posture review
Minute 65: Defense Security Service assessment indicates potential compromise of multiple Ukrainian support programs across defense industrial base
Minute 70: Media reports about nation-state targeting of defense contractors - public relations concerns about Aegis security practices
Round 2 Facilitation Questions
- “Now that classified reconnaissance technology is confirmed in adversary hands, how does this change your response strategy?”
- “What operational security implications exist for military reconnaissance capabilities compromised by nation-state espionage?”
- “How do you balance engineering team morale and security clearance concerns with comprehensive counterintelligence investigation?”
- “What long-term defense contract relationship implications result from inadequate response to nation-state targeting?”
Round 3: Strategic Resolution & Pentagon Coordination (40-50 min)
Final Investigation & Resolution
Detective Final Analysis:
- Complete nation-state attribution and defense industrial base targeting pattern analysis
- Document comprehensive forensic evidence for counterintelligence investigation and military assessment
- Assess long-term geopolitical implications of reconnaissance technology in foreign hands
- Develop lessons learned for defense contractor USB security and classified network protection
Protector Security Restoration:
- Implement complete nation-state worm removal with counterintelligence verification
- Rebuild classified engineering environment with enhanced defense security controls
- Establish ongoing monitoring for nation-state persistence and USB propagation
- Verify reconnaissance technology security for potential military delivery resumption
Tracker Threat Intelligence:
- Provide comprehensive foreign intelligence infrastructure analysis to counterintelligence agencies
- Document geopolitical targeting patterns affecting Ukrainian support programs
- Support attribution assessment for diplomatic and strategic response coordination
- Share defense industrial base threat intelligence with sector partners
Communicator Strategic Coordination:
- Finalize Pentagon notification and military contract status resolution
- Complete Defense Security Service reporting and counterintelligence investigation cooperation
- Address security clearance implications and engineering team recovery planning
- Coordinate public relations response to media coverage of nation-state targeting
Final NPC Resolutions
Colonel Mitchell (Strategic Decision):
Requires team to present recommendation on military delivery status:
- Can reconnaissance delivery proceed with security verification?
- What timeline is realistic for secure military technology restoration?
- How does Aegis demonstrate ongoing defense security commitment to Pentagon?
- What strategic defense capability impact results from nation-state compromise?
Dr. Peterson (Compliance Verification):
Demands comprehensive incident resolution documentation:
- Complete classified technology exposure assessment for federal reporting
- Security clearance review status for engineering staff involvement
- Defense security controls improvement plan for ongoing contractor certification
- Counterintelligence investigation cooperation and evidence delivery
Rachel Kowalski (Team Recovery):
Seeks clarity on engineering team future:
- What security clearance implications exist for staff who used compromised USB devices?
- How does Aegis support team recovery from federal investigation stress?
- What new classified handling procedures prevent future nation-state targeting?
- Can engineering team credibility be restored with Pentagon and military customers?
Agent Rodriguez (Geopolitical Assessment):
Provides final counterintelligence context:
- Nation-state campaign confirmed targeting 12+ defense contractors supporting Ukrainian operations
- Reconnaissance technology compromise provides adversaries strategic intelligence advantage
- Geopolitical response requires coordination between Pentagon, intelligence community, and diplomatic channels
- Aegis response quality affects broader defense industrial base security posture and international partnerships
Round 3 Pressure Events
Minute 85: Pentagon makes final decision on reconnaissance delivery - requires team recommendation with security justification
Minute 95: Defense Security Service completes assessment - security clearance and contract implications depend on incident response quality
Minute 105: Counterintelligence agencies coordinate with Ukrainian defense partners - geopolitical implications of technology compromise
Minute 110: Defense industry briefing scheduled - Aegis experience becomes case study for sector-wide nation-state threat awareness
Victory Condition Assessment
Technical Victory Indicators:
Business Victory Indicators:
Learning Victory Indicators:
Debrief Topics (20-25 min)
- Nation-State APT Sophistication:
- How did Litter Drifter’s USB propagation enable months of undetected classified surveillance?
- What defense industrial base targeting patterns indicate coordinated nation-state campaign?
- Why is attribution important for diplomatic and strategic response?
- Defense Contractor Security Obligations:
- What federal reporting and counterintelligence coordination requirements apply?
- How do security clearance processes protect classified technology?
- What Defense Security Service oversight ensures defense industrial base security?
- Geopolitical Context:
- Why do nation-state adversaries target Ukrainian defense support programs?
- What strategic advantage do adversaries gain from reconnaissance technology compromise?
- How do hybrid warfare operations integrate cyber espionage with kinetic military actions?
- Business-Security Balance:
- How do you weigh military delivery urgency against comprehensive security investigation?
- What long-term contract relationship implications result from incident response quality?
- When is it appropriate to accept delivery delays for national security priorities?
- USB Security in Classified Environments:
- What makes USB devices particularly dangerous in defense contractor settings?
- How should classified networks handle removable media given espionage risks?
- What technical controls and user training prevent nation-state USB propagation?
- Lessons for Real-World IR:
- How do nation-state incidents differ from criminal malware in investigation requirements?
- What makes defense contractor incidents unique compared to commercial sector?
- When should cybersecurity teams escalate to counterintelligence and national security agencies?
Advanced Challenge Materials (150-170 min, 3+ rounds)
Advanced Challenge Modifications
Remove Reference Materials:
- No access to Malmon compendium for Litter Drifter technical details
- Must recall nation-state behavior patterns and defense industrial base targeting from training
- Test knowledge of CMMC requirements and Defense Security Service protocols
- Challenge players to remember USB propagation mechanisms and APT persistence techniques
Add Red Herrings:
- Legitimate defense engineering causing false positive USB activity alerts
- Routine classified file transfers appearing as suspicious exfiltration in logs
- Authorized Pentagon security audit traffic resembling nation-state command and control
- Standard Ukrainian partner coordination emails flagged as potential intelligence collection
Ambiguous Containment Scenarios:
- Forensic evidence suggests possible nation-state removal but residual indicators persist
- Conflicting intelligence about whether reconnaissance specifications were fully exfiltrated
- Uncertain timeline of initial compromise - may predate current logging and monitoring
- Multiple potential nation-state adversaries with similar targeting - attribution uncertain
Incomplete Information Challenges:
- Classified system logs missing critical periods due to retention policies
- Some engineering workstations lack adequate monitoring - compromise scope uncertain
- Counterintelligence investigation ongoing - strategic intelligence not yet available
- Pentagon security assessment delayed - must make critical decisions without full military impact analysis
Deep Coordination Requirements:
- Must justify all counterintelligence decisions with incomplete classified technology exposure data
- Navigate conflicting stakeholder priorities without clear Pentagon guidance
- Coordinate with Defense Security Service while evidence collection continues
- Balance federal reporting requirements with ongoing forensic investigation needs
Advanced Challenge Scenario Variants
Variant A: Multi-Actor Attribution Challenge
- Evidence suggests both Russian and Chinese nation-state activity in defense contractor environment
- Must distinguish between Litter Drifter (Russian) and other APT operations (Chinese)
- Geopolitical response depends on accurate attribution - diplomatic implications significant
- Some USB devices may be counterintelligence honeypots from friendly nations testing security
Variant B: Supply Chain Compromise Complexity
- USB devices traced to “trusted” defense industry vendor - potential supply chain compromise
- Must assess whether vendor compromise affects multiple defense contractors beyond Aegis
- Pentagon considering vendor termination - decision depends on Aegis investigation findings
- Defense industrial base coordination required for sector-wide threat mitigation
Variant C: Insider Threat Dimension
- Some engineering staff have suspicious Ukrainian and Russian contacts - background investigation concerns
- Counterintelligence cannot rule out insider facilitation of nation-state access
- Security clearance adjudication depends on incident response team’s assessment
- Must balance investigation of potential insider threats with engineering team morale
Variant D: Active Operations Conflict
- Reconnaissance systems already deployed in limited military operations - operational security critical
- Compromise may affect fielded capabilities - urgent military assessment required
- Pentagon considering emergency recall of systems - strategic defense implications
- Operational commanders demand immediate clarity on reconnaissance compromise scope
Advanced NPC Complications
Colonel Mitchell (Competing Pressures):
- Receiving conflicting guidance from Pentagon procurement and military operational commanders
- Personal reputation at stake - career culmination project now under counterintelligence investigation
- Retirement plans affected by incident resolution - financial and professional legacy concerns
- May pressure team for conclusions that support business continuity over security thoroughness
Dr. Peterson (Federal Investigation Stress):
- Under intense Defense Security Service scrutiny - personal security clearance under review
- Responsible for contractor security posture that enabled months of undetected nation-state surveillance
- Career implications if Aegis loses defense certifications or contracts due to incident
- May become overly risk-averse and demand excessive security measures disrupting operations
Rachel Kowalski (Under Investigation):
- Personal security clearance suspended pending counterintelligence investigation completion
- Defensive about engineering practices - fears career damage and clearance revocation
- May withhold information about USB usage that could compromise colleagues
- Potential insider threat concern adds complexity to stakeholder coordination
Agent Rodriguez (Conflicting Intelligence Missions):
- Counterintelligence investigation priorities may conflict with team’s incident response needs
- Cannot share all classified intelligence about geopolitical context and nation-state operations
- Pressure from multiple agencies with different investigation objectives and timelines
- May request team actions that serve intelligence collection but complicate incident resolution
Advanced Pressure Events
Minute 25: Forensic analysis reveals possible second nation-state actor - attribution becomes complex
Minute 50: Engineering staff lawyer demands evidence of insider threat accusations before clearance suspensions
Minute 75: Pentagon leaked information to media - public pressure for rapid incident resolution
Minute 100: Ukrainian defense partners request intelligence sharing about reconnaissance compromise affecting joint operations
Minute 125: Defense Security Service preliminary findings question Aegis contractor certification eligibility
Minute 140: Counterintelligence investigation discovers reconnaissance technology on dark web marketplaces - wider exposure than expected
Advanced Facilitation Challenges
If Team Oversimplifies Attribution:
“Agent Rodriguez shows you traffic analysis suggesting multiple nation-state actors with different objectives. How do you distinguish between Russian Litter Drifter operations and possible Chinese APT activity when diplomatic response depends on accurate attribution?”
If Team Ignores Insider Threat Indicators:
“Dr. Peterson must report to Defense Security Service about engineering staff with suspicious foreign contacts who had access to compromised systems. How do you investigate potential insider facilitation without destroying team morale or assuming guilt?”
If Team Rushes to Conclusions:
“Colonel Mitchell is pushing for quick resolution to salvage delivery timeline, but forensic evidence remains incomplete with critical log gaps. How do you justify counterintelligence decisions when reconnaissance compromise scope is uncertain?”
If Team Neglects Geopolitical Context:
“The Ukrainian defense ministry is requesting intelligence about what reconnaissance capabilities have been compromised, but counterintelligence hasn’t completed attribution. How does your incident response affect international military partnerships and geopolitical strategy?”
Advanced Debrief Topics (30-35 min)
- Attribution Complexity in Nation-State Incidents:
- How do you distinguish between multiple APT actors with similar techniques?
- Why is attribution critical for diplomatic, strategic, and defense response?
- What forensic evidence supports or contradicts attribution conclusions?
- When is “we’re not sure” an acceptable answer vs. avoiding responsibility?
- Insider Threat in Security Clearance Environments:
- How do you investigate potential insider involvement without assuming guilt?
- What counterintelligence indicators suggest deliberate facilitation vs. exploitation?
- How do security clearance processes balance security concerns with due process?
- What organizational culture factors enable or prevent insider threats?
- Decision-Making Under Uncertainty:
- How do you make critical security decisions with incomplete forensic evidence?
- What level of confidence is required before Pentagon notification or federal reporting?
- How do you communicate uncertainty to stakeholders demanding definitive answers?
- When should investigation continue vs. implementing response with imperfect information?
- Defense Industrial Base Interdependencies:
- How do individual contractor incidents affect sector-wide security posture?
- What information sharing obligations exist between defense contractors for threat intelligence?
- How do supply chain compromises complicate attribution and remediation?
- What role does Pentagon coordination play in orchestrating defense industrial response?
- Balancing Speed vs. Thoroughness:
- When is rapid incident resolution appropriate vs. comprehensive investigation?
- How do business pressures affect incident response quality and long-term security?
- What are the consequences of premature “all clear” declarations in APT incidents?
- How do you manage stakeholder expectations when thoroughness requires time?
- Real-World Nation-State Response Lessons:
- What actual defense contractor nation-state incidents inform this scenario?
- How have real incidents balanced military operational needs with security response?
- What defense industrial base changes resulted from high-profile nation-state compromises?
- How do classified environments create unique challenges compared to commercial incident response?