Legacy Malmon Facilitation Examples

Overview

Legacy malmons (Code Red, Stuxnet, Gh0st RAT, Poison Ivy) require different facilitation approaches than contemporary threats. This guide provides concrete examples for running both Historical Foundation and Contemporary scenarios.

Quick Reference: Two Facilitation Approaches

Historical Foundation Approach

Purpose: Learn cybersecurity history and threat evolution
Start: Authentic historical context (2001-2010 technology)
Progress: Collaborative modernization through guided discovery
End: Contemporary threat understanding through historical perspective

Contemporary Approach

Purpose: Address current cybersecurity challenges
Start: Modern technology context (cloud, IoT, mobile)
Progress: Current threat response techniques
End: Contemporary incident response skills

Historical Foundation Facilitation Examples

Code Red Historical Foundation Session

Opening Context Setting

IM: “It’s July 2001. You’re at University Technology Services managing campus web servers. The internet is much smaller - mostly universities and corporations. Most security comes from obscurity rather than sophisticated defenses.”

IM Note: Critical to establish 2001 technology context before introducing the threat.

Technology Context Introduction

IM: “Your environment:” - “Windows 2000 servers running IIS web services” - “Manual patch management - no automatic updates” - “Network security through firewalls and access controls” - “Email-based alert systems for security notifications”

IM: “Who understands how different this environment is from today’s technology?”

Expected Player Response: “No cloud services, limited automation, much simpler networks”

IM Note: Help players understand historical limitations before introducing the attack.

Modernization Discovery Process

After historical investigation, facilitate modernization:

IM: “Now that you understand how Code Red worked in 2001, let’s think about today. What would be the modern equivalent of automatically scanning and exploiting web servers?”

Guide Players Toward: - API vulnerability scanning and exploitation - Cloud infrastructure mass exploitation
- Container and microservices attacks - Automated supply chain compromise

IM: “How would this attack affect a modern cloud-based SaaS provider serving thousands of customers?”

Expected Evolution: Players discover multi-tenant impact, API-based attacks, and modern automated exploitation.

Historical vs Contemporary Learning Synthesis

IM: “What patterns do you see between 2001 Code Red and modern automated attacks?”

Key Learning Points: - Automation Advantage: Attackers leveraging automation to outpace human response - Infrastructure Vulnerability: Single vulnerabilities affecting many targets - Scale Amplification: How interconnected systems amplify attack impact - Response Evolution: How detection and response capabilities have improved

Stuxnet Historical Foundation Session

Opening Context Setting

IM: “It’s 2010. You’re managing a nuclear facility’s industrial control systems. SCADA networks are considered secure through ‘air-gapping’ - complete isolation from the internet.”

IM Note: 2010 represented peak confidence in air-gapped security.

Historical Security Assumptions

IM: “Your security philosophy in 2010:” - “Air-gapped networks cannot be attacked remotely” - “Industrial control systems are too specialized for general attackers” - “Physical security equals cyber security for critical infrastructure” - “Nation-states don’t use cyber weapons against infrastructure”

IM: “What assumptions sound problematic today?”

Expected Player Response: “Air-gaps aren’t really isolated, specialization doesn’t equal security”

Modernization Discovery Process

IM: “Given what Stuxnet demonstrated in 2010, how would a similar attack work today against modern critical infrastructure?”

Guide Players Toward: - IoT and Industry 4.0 connectivity - Cloud-based monitoring and control - Supply chain attacks on connected systems - Remote access requirements during COVID-19

IM: “What critical infrastructure today would be most vulnerable to Stuxnet-style attacks?”

Expected Evolution: Smart grids, water treatment, transportation systems, healthcare networks.

Nation-State Threat Evolution

IM: “How have nation-state cyber capabilities evolved since Stuxnet was the first widely-recognized cyber weapon?”

Key Learning Points: - Normalized Cyber Conflict: Nation-state attacks now routine - Expanded Targeting: From nuclear facilities to all critical infrastructure - Capability Proliferation: Advanced techniques now accessible to more actors - Defensive Evolution: How critical infrastructure protection has improved

Gh0st RAT Historical Foundation Session

Opening Context Setting

IM: “It’s 2008. Your international trading company facilitates business between China and the US. Business email is the primary communication method. ‘Cybersecurity’ mostly means antivirus software.”

IM Note: 2008 represented early days of targeted attacks and business email compromise.

Historical Business Environment

IM: “Your 2008 business practices:” - “Email attachments are routine for business documents” - “Remote access tools are new and not well understood” - “Most cybersecurity focuses on viruses, not targeted attacks” - “International trade relies heavily on email communication”

IM: “How does this compare to modern business communication?”

Expected Player Response: “Much more cloud-based, mobile access, collaboration platforms”

Modernization Discovery Process

IM: “If Gh0st RAT represented early remote access trojans, what modern techniques provide similar capabilities?”

Guide Players Toward: - Legitimate remote access tool abuse - Cloud-based command and control - Living-off-the-land techniques - Supply chain software compromise

IM: “How would modern business collaboration platforms change this attack?”

Expected Evolution: Cloud storage compromise, collaboration platform infiltration, mobile device access.

Poison Ivy Historical Foundation Session

Opening Context Setting

IM: “It’s 2005. Your marketing agency handles sensitive clients in healthcare and finance. Email attachments with creative briefs and proposals are standard business practice. Remote access tools are emerging technology.”

IM Note: 2005 represented early sophistication in targeted attacks against service providers.

Historical Service Provider Context

IM: “Your 2005 business model:” - “Client data stored on local servers and file shares” - “Email attachments are primary method for sharing large files” - “Marketing agencies aren’t considered high-value cybersecurity targets” - “Regulatory compliance requirements are minimal”

IM: “How has the risk profile of service providers changed?”

Expected Player Response: “Much higher regulatory requirements, cloud storage, recognized as attack vectors”

Modernization Discovery Process

IM: “How would attackers target marketing agencies today to access multiple high-value clients?”

Guide Players Toward: - Cloud collaboration platform compromise - Supply chain attacks through creative software - Social media intelligence gathering - API integrations for customer data access

IM: “What modern regulatory requirements would apply to this incident?”

Expected Evolution: GDPR, state privacy laws, breach notification requirements, cybersecurity frameworks.

Contemporary Legacy Malmon Facilitation

For comprehensive Contemporary legacy malmon facilitation techniques, see Contemporary Legacy Malmon Facilitation Guide which provides advanced preparation workflows, specialized questioning techniques, and evolution-focused session structures.

Using Contemporary Scenario Cards

When using contemporary scenario cards for legacy malmons, emphasize the evolutionary connection to historical threats:

Code Red Contemporary Session Opening

IM: “You’re facing a cloud infrastructure attack that shares DNA with the 2001 Code Red worm. Both attacks use automation to exploit vulnerabilities at massive scale, but today’s version targets API gateways instead of web servers.”

IM Note: Establish the evolutionary connection immediately to provide learning context.

Stuxnet Contemporary Session Opening

IM: “This smart grid attack follows the Stuxnet playbook: sophisticated malware targeting specific industrial processes. But instead of air-gapped centrifuges, we’re dealing with cloud-connected renewable energy systems.”

IM Note: Help players understand how attack principles evolve with technology.

Adapting Existing Walkthroughs for Legacy Context

Adding Legacy Context to Standard Sessions

For Contemporary Malmons (GaboonGrabber, WannaCry, etc.)

Add historical perspective during debrief:

IM: “The social engineering techniques you just experienced have evolved from earlier threats. In 2005, attackers used similar email deception but with simpler technology…”

For Problem Scenarios

Silent Group with Legacy Context:

IM: “Let’s approach this differently. Imagine you’re investigating this incident in 2008 with the tools and knowledge available then. What would be different about your response?”

Expert-Dominated Group with Legacy Context:

IM: “Your expertise is valuable, but let’s consider how these techniques evolved. What would the 2001 version of this attack have looked like?”

IM Decision Points: Historical vs Contemporary

When to Choose Historical Foundation

Choose Historical Foundation when: - Group wants to understand cybersecurity evolution - Educational setting focused on history and development - Team building through collaborative discovery - Time available for extended learning (2+ hours) - Group has mixed expertise levels

When to Choose Contemporary

Choose Contemporary when: - Immediate practical skills needed - Limited time available (90 minutes or less) - Group has specific current technology challenges - Focus on current threat response techniques - Advanced technical audience

Hybrid Approach

Start Contemporary, Add Historical Context: 1. Run contemporary scenario normally 2. During debrief, introduce historical perspective 3. Quick comparison of how threat has evolved 4. Discuss what lessons apply across time periods

Advanced Legacy Facilitation Techniques

Historical Assumption Challenge

IM: “Based on 2001 security assumptions, why wouldn’t this attack work?”

Let players identify historical security blind spots, then reveal how attack circumvented assumptions.

Technology Translation Exercise

IM: “If you had to modernize this historical attack, what current technology would you target?”

Guide collaborative translation from historical to contemporary threats.

Evolution Pattern Recognition

IM: “What patterns do you see in how this threat evolved from 2001 to today?”

Help players identify consistent attack principles that transcend specific technology.

Defensive Evolution Discussion

IM: “How would modern defensive tools handle this historical attack? What gaps remain?”

Connect historical vulnerabilities to current defensive capabilities and remaining challenges.

Session Planning Quick Reference

Historical Foundation Session Structure

Historical Context (15 minutes) - Establish period technology and assumptions
Historical Investigation (45 minutes) - Authentic period response with limitations
Modernization Discovery (30 minutes) - Collaborative translation to current threats
Evolution Synthesis (15 minutes) - Learning synthesis and pattern recognition

Contemporary Legacy Session Structure

Evolutionary Context (5 minutes) - Connect to historical threat
Contemporary Response (75 minutes) - Standard modern incident response
Historical Comparison (15 minutes) - Brief historical perspective during debrief

Essential IM Preparation

For Historical Foundation: - Research actual historical technology limitations - Prepare period-appropriate NPCs and organizational contexts - Plan modernization discovery questions - Understand threat evolution timeline

For Contemporary: - Understand connection to historical threat - Prepare brief historical context - Focus on current practical applications - Emphasize lessons that transcend time periods

This guidance ensures legacy malmons provide valuable learning whether approached through historical foundation or contemporary application, while maintaining the collaborative discovery methodology that makes Malmon sessions effective.