Stuxnet Scenario: Research Facility Milestone
Planning Resources
Scenario Details for IMs
Advanced Energy Research Institute
Federal research lab, 400 scientists, classified projects
Key Assets At Risk:
- Classified research data
- National competitive advantage
- Scientific intellectual property
Business Pressure
Congressional presentation Wednesday - breakthrough research represents decades of work and billions in investment
Cultural Factors
- International research collaboration created vulnerabilities in previously air-gapped classified research networks
- Nation-state adversary specifically targets U.S. national laboratories to steal breakthrough technologies and scientific advantages
- Sophisticated malware manipulates research data while exfiltrating classified information to compromise U.S. scientific and economic competitiveness
Opening Presentation
“It’s Monday morning at the Advanced Energy Research Institute, and final preparations are underway for Wednesday’s presentation to Congress on breakthrough renewable energy technology. The research represents a decade of work by 50 scientists and could revolutionize U.S. energy independence. But during final data validation, researchers are discovering inconsistencies in experimental results that could invalidate the entire project. Initial investigation suggests sophisticated malware may have compromised research systems, potentially representing a nation-state attack targeting U.S. scientific advantages.”
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: Lead scientist reports that 30% of critical experimental data shows manipulation that could invalidate research conclusions
- Hour 2: Congressional staff calls to confirm research presentation schedule and breakthrough technology demonstration
- Hour 3: Laboratory director discovers that backup research systems show different results than primary computing displays
- Hour 4: Research security officer finds evidence that classified breakthrough technology data may have been exfiltrated to foreign adversaries
Evolution Triggers:
- If data manipulation continues, breakthrough research presentation will be based on compromised and invalid scientific results
- If Congressional presentation is cancelled, years of research investment and national energy policy development are delayed
- If classified research has been exfiltrated to foreign adversaries, U.S. scientific and economic competitive advantages are compromised
Resolution Pathways:
Technical Success Indicators:
- Team identifies sophisticated malware and research data manipulation and theft
- Research data integrity restored through comprehensive validation and malware removal
- Classified information protection enhanced while maintaining legitimate international scientific collaboration
Business Success Indicators:
- Research integrity and Congressional presentation timeline maintained throughout cybersecurity incident response
- Breakthrough technology development protected from foreign espionage and competitive compromise
- National laboratory mission fulfilled while addressing sophisticated nation-state cybersecurity threats
Learning Success Indicators:
- Team understands nation-state espionage threats to research institutions and intellectual property
- Participants recognize scientific research cybersecurity challenges and classified information protection requirements
- Group demonstrates coordination between cybersecurity, research operations, and national security considerations
Common IM Facilitation Challenges:
If Research Integrity Impact Is Minimized:
“While you’re conducting technical analysis, Dr. Martinez just confirmed that experimental data manipulation could invalidate the entire breakthrough research project, potentially wasting a decade of scientific work and billions in federal investment. How do you protect research integrity?”
If Espionage Implications Are Avoided:
“Linda just found evidence that classified renewable energy technology data may have been stolen and transferred to foreign competitors. What does this mean for U.S. energy independence and scientific advantages?”
If Congressional Pressure Is Underestimated:
“Senator Kim’s office just called to confirm that Wednesday’s presentation will demonstrate revolutionary technology that could change national energy policy. Can you guarantee the research data is valid and hasn’t been compromised?”
Success Metrics for Session:
Template Compatibility
This scenario adapts to multiple session formats with appropriate scope and timing:
Quick Demo (35-40 minutes)
Structure: 3 investigation rounds, 1 decision round Focus: Core data manipulation discovery and immediate research integrity response Simplified Elements: Streamlined classified information complexity and espionage attribution Key Actions: Identify malware targeting research data, implement emergency data validation, coordinate Congressional presentation decision
Round-by-Round Breakdown:
Setup & Opening (5 minutes):
Present the research facility crisis: Advanced Energy Research Institute 48 hours from Congressional presentation of breakthrough renewable energy research representing decade of work. Dr. Elena Vasquez discovers experimental data inconsistencies. Linda Park investigates espionage targeting classified research. Senator Brooks expects groundbreaking presentation.
Investigation Round 1 (10 minutes) - “How is malware manipulating breakthrough research data?”
- Detective discoveries: Research computing systems showing normal while data integrity checks reveal manipulation
- Protector findings: Experimental results systematically altered to invalidate breakthrough findings
- Tracker analysis: International collaboration systems created compromise vector
- Communicator insights: Research scientists describe data inconsistencies threatening validity
Teaching moment: Nation-state attacks on research institutions manipulate data to sabotage scientific credibility while stealing intellectual property.
Investigation Round 2 (10 minutes) - “What classified research has been exfiltrated to foreign adversaries?”
- Detective discoveries: 500GB of classified renewable energy research transmitted through collaboration channels
- Protector findings: Decade of U.S. scientific advantages potentially transferred to competitors
- Tracker analysis: Sophisticated espionage targeting national laboratory IP
- Communicator insights: Laboratory Director describes balancing collaboration with classified protection
Teaching moment: Nation-state espionage steals U.S. scientific advantages, allowing adversaries to bypass years of research investment.
Investigation Round 3 (10 minutes) - “What immediate response protects Congressional presentation integrity?”
- Detective discoveries: Data validation requirements for 48-hour timeline
- Protector findings: Independent verification needed beyond compromised systems
- Tracker analysis: Air-gapped research networks compromised through collaboration bridges
- Communicator insights: Senator Brooks’ office expects revolutionary technology demonstration
Teaching moment: Research institutions balance scientific openness with classified protection requirements.
Decision Round (5 minutes) - “Congressional presentation approach?”
Present three response options:
- Option A: Emergency research halt with complete validation (Super effective - ensures integrity but cancels presentation)
- Option B: Accelerated parallel validation with conditional presentation (Moderately effective - balances timeline with verification)
- Option C: Selective isolation with verified data presentation (Partially effective - maintains timeline but extended risk)
Debrief focus: Nation-state research targeting, data manipulation sabotage, intellectual property theft, classified information protection, research integrity requirements.
Lunch & Learn (75-90 minutes)
Structure: 5 investigation rounds, 2 decision rounds Focus: Comprehensive research system investigation and intellectual property protection Added Depth: International collaboration security and classified research network protection Key Actions: Complete forensic analysis of data manipulation and theft, coordinate with research security, restore scientific data integrity with verification
Round-by-Round Breakdown:
Setup & Opening (8 minutes):
Present comprehensive research context: Advanced Energy Research Institute federal lab with 400 scientists 48 hours from Congressional breakthrough presentation. Dr. Vasquez discovers experimental inconsistencies threatening decades of work. Dr. Morrison balances security with collaboration. Linda Park investigates espionage. Senator Brooks expects policy-influencing research affecting billions in funding.
Investigation Round 1 (15 minutes) - “How did international collaboration compromise air-gapped classified research?”
- Detective discoveries: Collaboration systems created network bridges to previously isolated classified networks last month
- Protector findings: Air-gapped research computing compromised through legitimate scientific partnership
- Tracker analysis: Nation-state exploitation of collaboration trust relationships as attack vector
- Communicator insights: International partners explain data sharing creating compromise opportunities
Teaching moment: Research collaboration creates security tension between scientific openness and classified protection. Nation-states exploit partnership trust.
Investigation Round 2 (15 minutes) - “What systematic data manipulation invalidates breakthrough research?”
- Detective discoveries: Experimental calculations and results systematically altered across multiple research datasets
- Protector findings: Malware targets both data AND validation systems to conceal manipulation
- Tracker analysis: Sabotage aims to discredit U.S. scientific credibility and waste research investment
- Communicator insights: Research scientists describe how subtle changes could invalidate entire project
Teaching moment: Data manipulation sabotage serves dual purpose: stealing IP while undermining scientific credibility of breakthrough research.
Investigation Round 3 (12 minutes) - “What classified intellectual property has been exfiltrated?”
- Detective discoveries: 500GB classified data including breakthrough technology designs, methodologies, calculations
- Protector findings: Complete research dataset exfiltrated allowing foreign competitors to replicate U.S. advantages
- Tracker analysis: Three weeks of covert transmission through collaboration channels
- Communicator insights: Decade of scientific investment and competitive advantage potentially compromised
Teaching moment: IP theft allows adversaries to bypass research investment and compete directly with stolen innovations.
Decision Round 1 (8 minutes) - “Immediate data validation approach?”
Guide team toward emergency validation decision balancing 48-hour Congressional timeline. Discuss independent verification requirements, research credibility priorities, federal funding implications.
Investigation Round 4 (12 minutes) - “What federal counterintelligence protocols address national laboratory targeting?”
- Detective discoveries: FBI and DOE coordination requirements for classified research breach
- Protector findings: National laboratory security protocols and incident reporting mandates
- Tracker analysis: Counterintelligence investigation of foreign espionage operations
- Communicator insights: Classification security staff explain federal coordination complexity
Teaching moment: National laboratories operate under enhanced federal security requiring multi-agency coordination for breach response.
Investigation Round 5 (12 minutes) - “What long-term collaboration security balances openness with protection?”
- Detective discoveries: Enhanced vetting for international partnerships
- Protector findings: Segmentation between open and classified research networks
- Tracker analysis: Continuous monitoring of collaboration data flows
- Communicator insights: Research community discusses balancing mission with security
Teaching moment: Research institutions require security architecture supporting both international collaboration and classified protection.
Decision Round 2 (8 minutes) - “Congressional presentation and long-term security approach?”
Present comprehensive options balancing emergency halt vs. accelerated validation vs. selective presentation. Discuss breakthrough impact, federal funding, security transformation requirements.
Debrief focus: Nation-state research targeting, data manipulation sabotage, classified IP theft, collaboration security tension, federal counterintelligence coordination, research integrity verification, long-term laboratory protection.
Full Game (120-140 minutes)
Structure: 7 investigation rounds, 3 decision rounds Focus: Complete nation-state espionage investigation with federal counterintelligence coordination Full Complexity: Classified research security protocols, Congressional coordination, long-term national laboratory protection enhancement Key Actions: Comprehensive nation-state attribution and damage assessment, coordinate federal counterintelligence response, implement enhanced research institution security while maintaining scientific mission
Round-by-Round Breakdown:
Setup & Opening (10 minutes):
Present complete national laboratory crisis: Advanced Energy Research Institute federal lab with 400 scientists and classified projects. 48 hours from Congressional presentation on breakthrough renewable energy affecting U.S. energy independence. Dr. Vasquez discovers data manipulation threatening validity. Dr. Morrison balances classified protection with collaboration. Linda Park investigates sophisticated espionage. Senator Brooks chairs Energy Committee expecting technology influencing billions in policy. Malware from collaboration systems manipulates data while exfiltrating decades of research.
Investigation Round 1 (18 minutes) - “How did international collaboration create classified research network vulnerability?”
- Detective discoveries: Collaboration systems established last month bridged air-gapped classified networks for legitimate scientific partnership, creating unintended attack surface
- Protector findings: Previously isolated research computing now accessible through collaboration infrastructure requiring network connectivity
- Tracker analysis: Nation-state reconnaissance identified collaboration timing as opportunity to penetrate classified systems
- Communicator insights: Laboratory Director describes tension between research mission (collaboration) and security requirements (isolation)
Teaching moment: Research institutions face unique challenge balancing scientific collaboration imperative with classified protection. Nation-states exploit this tension targeting collaboration as trusted vector.
Investigation Round 2 (15 minutes) - “What dual-purpose attack combines data manipulation sabotage with IP theft?”
- Detective discoveries: Systematic manipulation of experimental calculations, results, and validation data across multiple breakthrough research datasets
- Protector findings: Malware simultaneously steals research data AND alters findings to discredit U.S. scientific credibility
- Tracker analysis: Dual attack achieves competitive advantage (steal IP) while sabotaging U.S. research validity
- Communicator insights: Research scientists explain how subtle calculation changes could invalidate decade of work
Teaching moment: Sophisticated espionage combines IP theft with sabotage. Adversaries gain stolen advantages while undermining victim’s scientific credibility and research investment.
Investigation Round 3 (15 minutes) - “What classified breakthrough technology scope has been exfiltrated?”
- Detective discoveries: 500GB including complete renewable energy breakthrough designs, experimental methodologies, scientific calculations, and proprietary innovations
- Protector findings: Comprehensive dataset allows foreign competitors to replicate U.S. energy independence advantages without research investment
- Tracker analysis: Three weeks covert exfiltration through collaboration channels before detection
- Communicator insights: Energy policy implications - stolen research affects billions in federal funding and national strategic position
Teaching moment: National laboratory IP represents decades of investment and strategic advantages. Comprehensive exfiltration allows adversaries to compete directly with stolen innovations.
Decision Round 1 (12 minutes) - “Emergency research validation balancing Congressional deadline with integrity?”
Guide team through validation decision: complete research halt vs. accelerated verification vs. proceed with independent validation. Introduce pressure: Senator Brooks’ staff confirms presentation will influence energy policy. Discuss research credibility, federal funding, timeline constraints.
Investigation Round 4 (15 minutes) - “What federal counterintelligence coordination addresses national laboratory espionage?”
- Detective discoveries: FBI investigation of foreign intelligence operations, DOE security protocols for classified breach, multi-agency coordination requirements
- Protector findings: National laboratory special security status requiring enhanced federal partnership and oversight
- Tracker analysis: Counterintelligence assessment of adversary capabilities, objectives, and ongoing threat
- Communicator insights: Classification security staff navigate FBI, DOE, intelligence community coordination complexity
Teaching moment: National laboratories operate under comprehensive federal security framework. Breaches require multi-agency counterintelligence response coordinating law enforcement, security oversight, intelligence assessment.
Investigation Round 5 (15 minutes) - “What nation-state attribution connects technical evidence to strategic competitor?”
- Detective discoveries: Technical sophistication, research targeting patterns, strategic objectives point to state-sponsored industrial espionage
- Protector findings: Attack timing, breakthrough focus, dual sabotage/theft purpose indicate geopolitical competition for energy technology advantages
- Tracker analysis: Attribution requires synthesizing technical indicators with strategic context and intelligence assessment
- Communicator insights: Federal intelligence coordination provides geopolitical context for nation-state research targeting
Teaching moment: Attribution analyzes technical evidence within strategic context. Nation-state research espionage serves geopolitical competition and economic advantages beyond criminal objectives.
Decision Round 2 (12 minutes) - “Federal coordination balancing Congressional presentation with counterintelligence?”
Guide team through stakeholder decision: FBI investigation requirements, DOE security protocols, Congressional timeline, Senator coordination. Introduce pressure: Dr. Vasquez confirms 30% critical data manipulated. Discuss classification sensitivity, political implications, research integrity.
Investigation Round 6 (12 minutes) - “What collaboration security architecture balances scientific mission with classified protection?”
- Detective discoveries: Network segmentation separating open collaboration from classified research
- Protector findings: Enhanced vetting and monitoring for international partnership data flows
- Tracker analysis: Continuous behavioral analytics detecting anomalous collaboration activity
- Communicator insights: Research community discusses how security transformation maintains collaboration imperative
Teaching moment: Research institutions require sophisticated architecture supporting dual mission: international scientific collaboration AND classified protection. Balance requires technical and procedural controls.
Investigation Round 7 (12 minutes) - “What long-term national laboratory protection addresses persistent nation-state targeting?”
- Detective discoveries: Industry-wide research institution threat intelligence sharing
- Protector findings: Enhanced DOE security standards for federal laboratories
- Tracker analysis: Continuous nation-state threat monitoring and attribution
- Communicator insights: Federal partnership models supporting research security transformation
Teaching moment: National laboratories remain persistent nation-state targets. Long-term protection requires industry coordination, enhanced federal standards, sustained counterintelligence partnership.
Decision Round 3 (15 minutes) - “Comprehensive Congressional decision and research security transformation?”
Present final decision synthesizing investigation: proceed with presentation, security architecture redesign, federal partnership enhancement. Balance research integrity, breakthrough impact, strategic advantages protection, collaboration mission. Discuss lessons for national laboratory security.
Debrief focus: Complete nation-state espionage understanding, collaboration security tension, data manipulation sabotage, classified IP comprehensive theft, federal counterintelligence multi-agency coordination, attribution strategic assessment, research architecture dual mission requirements, long-term national laboratory protection, Congressional presentation high-stakes decision.
Advanced Challenge (150-170 minutes)
Structure: 8-9 investigation rounds, 4 decision rounds Expert Elements: Classified data exfiltration analysis, national laboratory security technical depth, international collaboration complexity Additional Challenges: Mid-scenario Congressional presentation deadline pressure, research validity questions, scientific credibility implications Key Actions: Complete investigation under research timeline constraints, coordinate multi-agency federal response, implement comprehensive national laboratory defense while ensuring breakthrough research protection
Round-by-Round Breakdown:
Setup & Opening (12 minutes):
Present expert-level national laboratory crisis with full complexity: Advanced Energy Research Institute federal lab with 400 scientists conducting classified breakthrough renewable energy research. 48 hours from Congressional Energy Committee presentation to Senator Brooks that could revolutionize U.S. energy independence and influence billions in federal funding. Dr. Elena Vasquez (Lead Research Scientist) discovers experimental data shows systematic inconsistencies threatening to invalidate years of breakthrough work. Dr. James Morrison (Laboratory Director) must protect classified research while maintaining international scientific collaboration balancing security with research mission. Linda Park (Research Security Officer) investigates sophisticated espionage targeting national laboratory intellectual property. International collaboration systems established last month created bridges to air-gapped classified networks. Malware manipulates experimental data while exfiltrating complete research datasets to foreign adversaries representing decades of U.S. scientific advantages.
Investigation Round 1 (15 minutes) - “How did international collaboration create systematic classified research network compromise?”
- Detective deep forensics: Collaboration systems required network connectivity to previously air-gapped classified research computing for legitimate scientific partnership, architectural changes created unintended attack surface exploited through trusted relationship
- Protector technical analysis: Air-gap bridging mechanisms, network segmentation failures, collaboration platform security assumptions bypassed through partner trust model
- Tracker collaboration timeline: Attack infiltrated precisely when collaboration infrastructure deployed, nation-state reconnaissance identified modernization as penetration opportunity
- Communicator partnership dynamics: International scientists explain legitimate collaboration requirements creating security tension, trusted partner relationships exploited as attack vector
Teaching moment: Research institutions face fundamental tension: scientific mission requires international collaboration, security requires isolation. Nation-states systematically exploit this contradiction, targeting collaboration as privileged trusted vector into classified systems.
Investigation Round 2 (15 minutes) - “What sophisticated dual-purpose attack achieves sabotage AND IP theft simultaneously?”
- Detective data forensics: Systematic manipulation across multiple datasets - experimental calculations altered, validation data modified, results skewed to invalidate breakthrough findings while maintaining plausible appearance
- Protector manipulation analysis: Malware targets both primary research data AND independent validation systems creating comprehensive credibility compromise
- Tracker strategic assessment: Dual attack objectives: steal complete IP for competitive advantage while sabotaging U.S. research credibility to waste investment and delay energy policy
- Communicator scientific impact: Research scientists describe how subtle calculation changes compound to invalidate entire project representing decade of work
Teaching moment: Sophisticated nation-state espionage combines IP theft with sabotage achieving multiple strategic objectives. Adversaries gain stolen research advantages while simultaneously undermining victim’s scientific credibility and research program viability.
Investigation Round 3 (15 minutes) - “What comprehensive classified breakthrough technology has been exfiltrated?”
- Detective exfiltration forensics: 500GB classified data including complete renewable energy breakthrough technology designs, proprietary experimental methodologies, scientific calculations, research roadmaps, and innovation datasets
- Protector damage assessment: Comprehensive intellectual property allowing foreign competitors to replicate decade of U.S. energy independence research without investment, time, or scientific expertise requirements
- Tracker covert channels: Three weeks sustained exfiltration through collaboration communication channels using legitimate scientific data exchange as cover
- Communicator strategic implications: Energy Committee staff describe how breakthrough affects billions in federal funding, national energy policy, and U.S. strategic competitive position globally
Teaching moment: National laboratory IP represents decades of federal investment, strategic national advantages, and scientific leadership. Comprehensive exfiltration transfers complete competitive advantages allowing adversaries to bypass research timeline and compete directly with stolen innovations.
Decision Round 1 (12 minutes) - “Emergency research validation under extreme Congressional deadline and integrity uncertainty?”
Guide team through complex decision under timeline pressure: complete research halt with validation vs. accelerated 36-hour verification vs. proceed using independent measurement. Introduce: Senator Brooks’ Energy Committee expects revolutionary technology demonstration influencing national energy policy. Discuss research credibility vs. political timeline, federal funding implications, scientific integrity standards, breakthrough impact.
Investigation Round 4 (13 minutes) - “What multi-agency federal counterintelligence framework addresses national laboratory espionage?”
- Detective federal coordination: FBI investigation of foreign intelligence operations, DOE Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence protocols, National Counterintelligence and Security Center assessment, multi-agency task force requirements
- Protector laboratory status: National laboratory special security designation requiring enhanced federal partnership, clearance management, classified technology protection beyond commercial standards
- Tracker counterintelligence operations: Ongoing adversary threat monitoring, attribution assessment, damage control, operational security enhancement during active foreign intelligence investigation
- Communicator bureaucratic complexity: Classification security staff navigate FBI, DOE, ODNI, intelligence community coordination requirements balancing investigation, security, research mission
Teaching moment: National laboratories operate under comprehensive federal security framework distinct from commercial research. Classified breaches require multi-agency counterintelligence response coordinating law enforcement investigation, security oversight, intelligence community assessment, operational continuity.
Investigation Round 5 (13 minutes) - “What multi-source attribution synthesizes technical evidence with strategic intelligence?”
- Detective technical indicators: Malware sophistication, research targeting precision, collaboration exploitation methodology, exfiltration techniques indicate state-level capabilities
- Protector strategic analysis: Attack timing (breakthrough presentation), targeting (energy independence technology), dual objectives (sabotage+theft) serve geopolitical competition for technological advantages
- Tracker intelligence synthesis: Combining technical forensics with strategic context, capability assessment, geopolitical competition analysis, known adversary patterns requiring intelligence community coordination
- Communicator attribution confidence: Intelligence assessment provides strategic context connecting technical evidence to nation-state adversary with high-confidence attribution through multi-source correlation
Teaching moment: High-confidence nation-state attribution requires synthesizing technical forensic evidence with strategic intelligence assessment. Analysis examines capabilities, objectives, geopolitical context, known adversary patterns beyond purely technical indicators.
Decision Round 2 (12 minutes) - “Federal coordination balancing Congressional presentation with counterintelligence sensitivity?”
Guide team through stakeholder coordination: FBI investigation timeline requirements, DOE security protocols, Congressional Energy Committee coordination, Senator Brooks’ political schedule. Introduce: Dr. Vasquez analysis confirms 30% of critical experimental data manipulated potentially invalidating conclusions. Discuss classification sensitivity, political implications, research program credibility, counterintelligence operational security.
Investigation Round 6 (12 minutes) - “What collaboration security architecture achieves dual mission: scientific openness AND classified protection?”
- Detective architecture analysis: Network segmentation separating open collaboration platforms from classified research computing with enhanced boundary controls
- Protector partnership security: Graduated trust model with international partner vetting, continuous behavioral monitoring, data flow validation, anomaly detection
- Tracker collaboration monitoring: Real-time analytics detecting anomalous partnership activity, exfiltration attempts, credential abuse within legitimate collaboration context
- Communicator research culture: Science community discusses balancing collaboration imperative with security requirements, maintaining research mission while implementing protection
Teaching moment: Research institutions require sophisticated security architecture supporting dual contradictory requirements: international collaboration (openness, trust, data sharing) AND classified protection (isolation, verification, access control). Balance requires technical controls, procedural discipline, cultural awareness.
Investigation Round 7 (12 minutes) - “What continuous validation distinguishes compromised from trustworthy research data?”
- Detective independent verification: Multiple independent measurement sources, baseline comparison, deviation detection, physical validation beyond digital systems
- Protector assume-breach validation: When research computing compromised, independent experimental equipment becomes critical integrity anchor
- Tracker validation methodology: Statistical analysis detecting systematic manipulation patterns, experimental reproducibility verification, multi-source data correlation
- Communicator scientific rigor: Research scientists explain validation methodologies ensuring breakthrough integrity despite computing compromise
Teaching moment: When research computing compromised, independent physical validation becomes critical. Continuous verification using multiple independent sources detects manipulation, ensures integrity, maintains scientific credibility under adversarial conditions.
Decision Round 3 (12 minutes) - “Research modernization balancing advancement with nation-state threat landscape?”
Guide team through strategic decision: cloud computing for research collaboration, IoT laboratory equipment, connected experimental systems. Introduce: Laboratory Director asks whether federal labs can collaborate internationally while nation-states target research. Discuss advancement benefits, attack surface expansion, vendor security, technology evolution.
Investigation Round 8 (12 minutes) - “What national laboratory ecosystem coordination addresses persistent targeting?”
- Detective industry coordination: DOE laboratory network threat intelligence sharing, research institution ISAC, federal-academic partnership models
- Protector regulatory evolution: Enhanced DOE security standards for federal laboratories, classification protection modernization, collaboration security requirements
- Tracker persistent threat: Nation-state research targeting continues, requiring sustained counterintelligence, threat monitoring, attribution capabilities
- Communicator federal partnership: DOE, FBI, intelligence community sustained collaboration supporting laboratory security transformation
Teaching moment: National laboratories remain persistent high-value nation-state targets. Long-term protection requires industry-wide coordination, enhanced federal security standards, sustained counterintelligence partnership, continuous threat evolution monitoring.
Investigation Round 9 (Optional, 10 minutes) - “What lessons from research espionage inform contemporary laboratory security?”
- Detective threat evolution: How have nation-state capabilities evolved? Cloud targeting, supply chain attacks, insider recruitment represent advancing threats
- Protector modernization challenges: Balancing research advancement (collaboration, cloud, IoT) with security in persistent adversarial environment
- Tracker collaboration security: Enhanced vetting, behavioral monitoring, graduated trust models protecting partnerships
- Communicator research mission: Maintaining scientific collaboration imperative while implementing protection against sophisticated adversaries
Teaching moment: Research espionage provides foundation for contemporary laboratory security. Understanding adversary evolution, modernization challenges, collaboration protection informs ongoing defense architecture for federal research institutions.
Decision Round 4 (15 minutes) - “Comprehensive Congressional presentation decision and research security transformation?”
Present final comprehensive decision synthesizing all investigation insights: Proceed with Congressional breakthrough presentation using validated data vs. cancel presentation with complete re-validation vs. partial presentation with caveats. Discuss research integrity assurance, breakthrough technology impact on energy policy, security architecture transformation, federal counterintelligence partnership, collaboration security framework, long-term national laboratory protection. Balance scientific credibility, political timeline, strategic advantages protection, research mission continuation.
Debrief focus: Comprehensive expert-level nation-state espionage understanding, international collaboration security fundamental tension, dual-purpose attack combining sabotage and IP theft, classified breakthrough technology comprehensive exfiltration, federal counterintelligence multi-agency coordination framework, attribution synthesizing technical and strategic intelligence, collaboration security architecture dual mission requirements, continuous validation methodologies under compromise, research modernization balancing advancement with threats, national laboratory ecosystem coordination, Congressional presentation high-stakes decision under integrity uncertainty, lessons informing contemporary research institution security.
Quick Demo Materials (35-40 min)
Guided Investigation Clues
Progressive hints to maintain engagement and learning momentum:
Pre-Defined Response Options
Three balanced response approaches with trade-offs:
Option A: Emergency Research Halt & Complete Data Re-Validation
- Action: Immediately suspend all research operations and Congressional presentation, implement comprehensive malware removal and research data re-validation from independent sources, coordinate complete damage assessment with federal counterintelligence before resuming any scientific activities or public presentations.
- Pros: Ensures absolute certainty of research data integrity and classified information protection, provides thorough investigation of nation-state espionage and intellectual property theft, demonstrates unwavering commitment to scientific credibility and national security.
- Cons: Cancels Congressional presentation and delays energy policy development by months, invalidates current research timeline and billions in federal investment, creates public questions about research institute credibility, may require complete experimental re-execution.
- Type Effectiveness: Super effective against APT malmon type; complete research system restoration prevents nation-state data manipulation and intellectual property theft with zero scientific credibility risk.
Option B: Accelerated Parallel Validation & Conditional Presentation
- Action: Conduct intensive 36-hour malware removal and independent data validation using all available research resources, implement real-time verification protocols comparing multiple independent data sources, coordinate expedited assessment with federal security for conditional Congressional presentation authorization while maintaining enhanced monitoring.
- Pros: Balances research integrity with Congressional timeline requirements, provides compressed but thorough security response and data validation, demonstrates agile incident management under national pressure, maintains scientific mission while addressing espionage threat.
- Cons: Requires extraordinary resource commitment and sustained operations under extreme deadline pressure, compressed timeline increases risk of incomplete validation or missed data manipulation, maintains some uncertainty during presentation phase, intensive coordination stress across research and security teams.
- Type Effectiveness: Moderately effective against APT malmon type; addresses immediate research integrity concerns while maintaining presentation capability, but compressed timeline may not fully identify all data manipulation or prevent sophisticated nation-state persistence.
Option C: Selective System Isolation & Phased Research Recovery
- Action: Isolate compromised research systems from classified networks, implement emergency validation protocols using independent measurement equipment and backup data sources, proceed with Congressional presentation using verified research while conducting thorough espionage investigation on isolated networks, coordinate phased security restoration aligned with scientific mission requirements.
- Pros: Maintains Congressional presentation and energy policy development timeline, allows breakthrough technology demonstration with verified independent validation, provides time for comprehensive nation-state threat investigation, demonstrates sophisticated risk management balancing multiple critical national priorities.
- Cons: Presents research while partially compromised systems remain under investigation, requires sustained independent verification and monitoring increasing complexity, extended espionage risk window during phased recovery, depends on effectiveness of isolation measures and backup data reliability.
- Type Effectiveness: Partially effective against APT malmon type; addresses immediate research credibility requirements through independent validation, but extended presence of nation-state malware creates ongoing intellectual property theft risk and potential for continued data manipulation if isolation fails.