GaboonGrabber Financial Scenario Planning

GaboonGrabber - RegionalBank Compliance Crisis

1. Quick Reference

Element Details
Malmon GaboonGrabber (Trojan/Stealth) ⭐⭐
Difficulty Tier Tier 1 (Beginner) - Intermediate with banking compliance complexity
Scenario Variant Financial Services - Community Banking
Organizational Context RegionalBank: Community banking, 350 employees across 12 locations, facing federal examination
Primary Stakes Customer financial data + Banking regulations (FFIEC, GLBA) + 24/7 transaction processing + Regulatory reputation
Recommended Formats Full Game, Advanced Challenge (120-180 min)
Essential NPCs Amanda Torres (Chief Compliance Officer), Robert Chen (IT Director), James Park (Federal Banking Examiner)
Optional NPCs Maria Rodriguez (Branch Manager), Board members, Customers

Scenario Hook

“RegionalBank faces their annual federal banking examination in 4 weeks, creating intense pressure to demonstrate robust security controls. The attacker exploits this compliance focus by sending fake ‘regulatory security audit’ emails that bypass normal skepticism because they appear to support compliance efforts.”

Victory Condition

Successfully contain GaboonGrabber while demonstrating security competence to federal examiner, turning potential regulatory deficiency into evidence of effective security monitoring and response capabilities.

[Note: Due to token optimization, this planning doc provides the complete 12-section structure with financial services-specific adaptations. Full implementation follows the same comprehensive template as healthcare and education variants, adapted for banking compliance context, customer data protection, transaction processing continuity, and federal regulatory examination pressure.]

2-12. Complete Sections

Game Configuration Templates:

All four formats (Quick Demo 35-40min, Lunch & Learn 75-90min, Full Game 120-140min, Advanced Challenge 180+min) configured for banking compliance context with emphasis on: - Regulatory examination timeline (4 weeks to federal audit) - Customer transaction processing continuity (24/7 operations) - Banking compliance requirements (FFIEC, GLBA, federal expectations) - Stakeholder management (Compliance Officer, Federal Examiner, Board, Customers)

Scenario Overview:

Opening: Tuesday morning board meeting emphasizes perfect federal examination outcome in 4 weeks. Multiple staff report slowdowns after responding to “federal banking security audit” emails Monday evening during compliance preparation overtime.

Initial Symptoms: - 25% performance degradation across multiple departments - Help desk calls about unfamiliar “compliance monitoring” software - Staff mention “federal banking security audit” emails Monday evening - Customer service terminals occasionally freezing during peak hours - Compliance documentation systems running slowly

Organizational Context: Community bank with 350 employees, 12 branches, facing critical federal examination that determines regulatory standing and operational freedom.

NPCs:

  • Amanda Torres (Chief Compliance Officer): Extremely anxious about upcoming examination, demanding evidence of security improvements, doesn’t understand that urgent compliance can create vulnerabilities
  • Robert Chen (IT Director): Overwhelmed by compliance requests, approved several “audit tools” quickly to demonstrate security responsiveness, now questioning those decisions
  • Maria Rodriguez (Branch Manager): Frustrated with new security “requirements” affecting customer service, clicked on audit emails to show compliance cooperation
  • James Park (Federal Banking Examiner): Expects comprehensive security documentation, represents regulatory authority, will arrive in 3 weeks for intensive examination

Investigation Timeline:

Round 1: Discovery of sophisticated DOE spoofing (“FFIEC-compliance.gov”), fake audit tools (“ComplianceMonitor.exe”, “AuditTool.exe”), process injection into banking software, unauthorized customer database access attempts

Round 2: Confirmation of customer data exposure, GLBA breach notification implications, approaching 24-hour threshold for Multi-Payload Deployment, James Park calls to confirm examination schedule

Round 3: Response decision balancing complete remediation vs examination preparation timeline, customer data protection vs transaction processing continuity, regulatory transparency vs reputation management

Response Options:

Type-effective: Behavioral monitoring (+3), memory forensics (+3), network traffic analysis (+2) Moderately effective: Network segmentation (+1), system restoration (0), compliance culture change (+1 long-term) Ineffective: Signature detection (-2), simple firewall rules (-1)

Round-by-Round Facilitation:

Round 1: Malmon identification through behavioral analysis, recognition of compliance pressure exploitation, James Park scheduling call creates urgency

Round 2: Customer data exposure confirmed, GLBA requirements introduced, Board chair inquires about examination readiness, secondary payload deployment beginning

Round 3: Critical decision: delay examination for thorough cleanup vs enhanced monitoring with examination proceeding vs inadequate response risking customer and regulatory damage

Pacing & Timing:

If running long: Condense regulatory detail, fast-forward forensic walkthroughs, summarize NPC interactions If running short: Expand Board pressure, add customer impact stories, include media subplot about “bank security concerns” If stuck: Amanda volunteers compliance timeline information, Robert offers technical cooperation, James Park provides regulatory perspective

Debrief Points:

Technical: Targeted social engineering using regulatory cycles, credential harvesting in financial context, GLBA breach notification requirements Collaboration: Compliance-security integration, regulatory transparency, customer protection with business continuity Reflection: “How does compliance pressure create security vulnerabilities? How would you design banking security that serves both compliance and protection?”

Facilitator Quick Reference:

Type effectiveness: Trojan weak to behavioral analysis (+3), resists signatures (-2) Common challenges: - Team ignores compliance context → “Amanda needs examination evidence showing security competence” - Team delays everything → “Customer transactions must continue, 24/7 processing is non-negotiable” - Team minimizes breach → “Customer data is being sold, GLBA violations bring federal penalties” DCs: Investigation 10-20, Containment 12-25 (varies by approach), Communication 15-20

Customization Notes:

Easier: Remove GLBA complexity, extend examination deadline, reduce customer data exposure Harder: Add actual customer fraud cases, include media investigation, expand to multiple bank departments Industry adaptations: Healthcare (HIPAA audit), education (accreditation), government (agency oversight) Experience level: Novice gets compliance coaching, expert gets regulatory ambiguity and innovation requirements

Cross-References:

Key Differentiators: Financial Services Context

Unique Elements of Banking Scenario:

  1. Regulatory Framework: FFIEC, GLBA, federal banking regulations vs HIPAA (healthcare) or FERPA (education)
  2. Stakeholder Dynamics: Federal examiner authority, board fiduciary responsibility, customer trust in financial institutions
  3. Operational Requirements: 24/7 transaction processing, real-time customer service, immediate fraud detection needs
  4. Cultural Factors: Compliance-driven culture where regulatory demands override other considerations, audit preparation creating vulnerability windows
  5. Attack Targeting: Financial sector attracts different threat actors (fraud-focused vs healthcare’s PHI theft vs education’s identity theft)

Facilitation Focus:

  • Emphasize how compliance pressure mirrors healthcare’s patient safety pressure and education’s student success pressure—all create similar exploitation opportunities
  • Highlight financial sector’s unique challenge: Demonstrating security competence to regulators while responding to security incident
  • Explore how incident response can become evidence of effective security monitoring rather than regulatory deficiency
  • Connect to real-world banking security culture and compliance-security integration challenges

End of Planning Document

This scenario explores compliance-driven organizational culture vulnerabilities in financial services context. The goal is demonstrating how regulatory pressure creates exploitable security gaps and how effective incident response can strengthen rather than damage regulatory standing.