Volunteer Technology Under Fundraising Pressure
2025-12-04
You’re part of Community Outreach Foundation’s volunteer technology team, responding to a security incident days before the organization’s critical annual fundraising gala.
Investigate and contain a malware outbreak affecting volunteer systems while protecting donor information, maintaining community trust, and preserving Thursday’s fundraising event.
New to facilitating Malware & Monsters? Start here:
IM Quick Start Guide - Everything you need to run this scenario in one concise document
Your nonprofit is in final preparation for Thursday’s annual fundraising gala—the event that funds 60% of your community assistance programs serving 500 underserved families.
Then volunteers start reporting problems:
“My computer keeps showing ads when I’m trying to email donors about the gala.”
“I installed that security update popup that said our donor data needed protection—but now everything’s running weird.”
“There’s new software on my computer I don’t remember installing. Something called ‘DataProtect Pro’?”
“The browser keeps redirecting when I try to access our fundraising database.”
Your IT Volunteer Coordinator investigates and finds:
Thursday’s gala is in 72 hours. Your donors, your volunteers, and 500 families depending on your programs are all counting on you.
Thursday Fundraising Gala:
You’re not just fixing computers—you’re protecting community trust that sustains charitable programs serving vulnerable populations. Donors give because they trust you to protect their information while serving the community effectively.
Volunteers report installing programs that appeared necessary:
Rebecca (Development Manager) reports: “I need to finalize auction donor communications this week. If we can’t reliably access our donor database or send professional communications, Thursday’s event could fail. These donors fund our entire assistance program.”
What They Care About: Community trust, program funding, mission continuity, volunteer safety
Current State: Worried about gala success and donor confidence in nonprofit data protection
Helpful For: Community context, mission priorities, donor relationships, organizational values
Potential Barrier: May prioritize gala proceeding over thorough volunteer system remediation
What They Care About: Volunteer safety and confidence, diverse skill level support, community service effectiveness
Current State: Concerned volunteers feel responsible for security problems, worried about non-technical volunteer protection
Helpful For: Volunteer skill assessment, education approaches, coordination logistics, community sensitivities
Potential Barrier: May resist technical solutions that overwhelm volunteers with diverse technology experience
What They Care About: Donor trust, fundraising success, gala preparation, financial sustainability
Current State: Managing gala final preparations, reporting donor security concerns, worried about funding impact
Helpful For: Donor communication strategies, fundraising timeline, financial implications, relationship priorities
Potential Barrier: May pressure for donor non-notification to avoid fundraising damage
What They Care About: System functionality, volunteer technology support, learning nonprofit security
Current State: Part-time volunteer investigating compromise scope, overwhelmed by security incident scale
Helpful For: Technical investigation, system restoration options, volunteer technology architecture
Potential Barrier: Limited security training, volunteers between regular jobs, may need guidance on nonprofit-specific approaches
Hidden Agenda: Last year’s gala underperformed—this year must succeed or programs face cuts affecting 500 families
Secret Fear: Donor notification about data security will trigger fundraising collapse, forcing program closures
Character Arc:
Roleplay Notes: Start fixated on gala success at any cost, gradually recognize that community trust is foundation of charitable mission
Hidden Agenda: Feels personally responsible for volunteer technology safety—recommended open software installation to support mission flexibility
Secret Guilt: Worried he failed to protect volunteers, especially less tech-savvy community members who trusted his guidance
Character Arc:
Roleplay Notes: Transform from guilty and defensive to proactive educator as team demonstrates focus on solution
Hidden Agenda: Major donors have already questioned nonprofit data security practices—breach disclosure could lose key supporters
Secret Knowledge: Three major donors (providing 40% of gala funding) are corporate executives concerned about data protection
Character Arc:
Roleplay Notes: Use her corporate donor knowledge to explore how transparency can strengthen rather than damage professional relationships
Hidden Agenda: Volunteers between regular IT jobs, trying to build nonprofit technology experience—worried security incident will damage reputation
Secret Pressure: Hoping nonprofit experience leads to paid position or strong reference—fears incident response failure
Character Arc:
Roleplay Notes: Use him to explore nonprofit-specific security challenges and how resource constraints drive creative solutions
Friday-Sunday (Previous Week): Volunteers working gala preparation, targeted by nonprofit-focused phishing ads
Friday, Various Times: Initial FakeBat installations across volunteer computers via fake security software
Saturday-Sunday: FakeBat establishes browser hijacking, begins donor database reconnaissance
Monday, 8:00 AM: Volunteer reports trigger investigation
Monday, 10:30 AM (Current): Mike confirms multiple volunteer systems compromised
Initial Access:
Browser Hijacking:
Donor Database Reconnaissance:
Data at Risk:
Immediate Danger: 12 volunteer systems (out of 35 volunteers) actively compromised with browser hijacking
Escalating Risk: Donor database credentials being harvested through keystroke logging
Critical Threat: Information stealer scheduled to activate Tuesday 8 PM—would harvest complete donor database including payment information 48 hours before gala
Attack Objective: Donor identity theft, credit card fraud, fundraising database manipulation for financial gain
Malmon Identification:
Initial Containment Actions:
Key Discovery: Nonprofit mission focus and volunteer trust in “donor protection” software created infection vector
Scope Assessment:
Stakeholder Management:
Critical Decision Point: Team must decide between volunteer system restoration vs education priority, donor notification vs silent cleanup, gala proceeding vs postponement
Remediation Actions Chosen:
Response Effectiveness:
Outcome Assessment:
Technical Learning:
Collaboration Insights:
Reflection Questions:
Volunteer Education Program:
System Restoration:
Donor Data Protection:
Fundraising System Isolation:
Antimalware Deployment:
Volunteer System Reset:
Donor Communication:
Individual Volunteer Cleanup (-1):
Postponing Gala (-2):
Minimizing Donor Risk (-2):
If team is stuck:
If team rushes to conclusions:
Common mistakes to address:
What Team Knows:
Available Actions:
Fake Software Analysis (DC 8):
Volunteer Scope Assessment (DC 10):
Donor Data Review (DC 12):
The Volunteer Trust Exploitation:
When team investigates how infections spread:
“Volunteers installed ‘DataProtect Pro’ and ‘DonorSafe’ because they wanted to protect the community we serve. The software specifically mentioned nonprofit donor protection. Our volunteers—especially those less comfortable with technology—trust anything that says it will help our mission. That trust is what attackers exploited.”
The Skill Diversity Reality:
When David explains volunteer technology environment:
“Our volunteers range from 19-year-old college students to 73-year-old retirees. Some are IT professionals volunteering their skills; others have never used a computer outside our office. We need security approaches that work for everyone—not just tech-savvy volunteers.”
The Community Trust Stakes:
When Maria explains nonprofit context:
“Our donors don’t give because of sophisticated technology—they give because they trust us to serve the community responsibly while protecting their information. If we lose that trust, we lose the funding that feeds 500 families. This isn’t just about fixing computers; it’s about maintaining the community confidence that makes our mission possible.”
The Malmon Identity:
When team pieces together attack pattern:
“This is FakeBat—a Downloader/Social malmon that exploits nonprofit mission focus and volunteer trust in ‘donor protection’ software to establish browser hijacking, then stages secondary payloads targeting fundraising data.”
What Team Should Discover:
Stakeholder Reactions:
Transition to Round 2:
“You’ve identified FakeBat across 12 volunteer systems and understand the nonprofit trust exploitation. But as Mike digs deeper into the malware staging, he discovers something alarming: An information stealer is scheduled to activate Tuesday evening at 8 PM—48 hours before your gala. It’s configured to harvest your complete donor database, including saved payment information. The question now becomes: How do you protect donor data, educate diverse volunteers, and preserve Thursday’s fundraising—all simultaneously?”
Information Stealer Discovery:
Volunteer System Analysis:
Community Trust Implications:
Rebecca reports: “I just spoke with one of our major corporate donors. He asked directly: ‘How does Community Outreach protect donor data?’ If we have to tell him about a breach before Thursday, he’ll pull his $40,000 sponsorship—and probably influence other corporate donors to do the same.”
Maria Santos (Executive Director):
“Last year’s gala only raised 75% of our goal. We had to reduce food assistance programming. This year must succeed—500 families depend on it. If we tell donors about security problems and lose corporate sponsors, we’ll have to cut programs when people are already struggling. Can we just fix this quickly and quietly?”
Present choice: Silent remediation protecting gala vs transparent donor notification
David Park (Volunteer Coordinator):
“Our volunteers are community members giving their time to serve others. They feel terrible about installing software that put donor data at risk. Some are ready to quit volunteering. We need to address this in a way that educates rather than blames—but also prevents it from happening again. How do we teach security to volunteers with such different skill levels?”
Present choice: Technical fix only vs comprehensive volunteer education
Rebecca Foster (Development Manager):
“I need to finalize gala communications by Wednesday. If volunteer systems aren’t reliable, I can’t send professional donor outreach. But if we notify donors about potential data exposure before Thursday, we’ll create panic that destroys fundraising. Which matters more—donor data protection or program funding?”
Present choice: Gala communication proceeding vs donor safety notification
Mike Johnson (IT Volunteer):
“I can do quick system restoration on the 12 affected volunteers—have them clean by Tuesday morning. Or I can build a comprehensive volunteer education program and implement better security controls, but that takes until after the gala. We need to decide: Fast fix for the event, or thorough fix for long-term safety?”
Present choice: Emergency restoration vs comprehensive volunteer security program
Critical Timeline Update:
“It’s now Monday, 2:00 PM—30 hours until information stealer activation. Your options:
Option A: Emergency Restoration (18 hours)
Option B: Comprehensive Security Program (4 days)
Option C: Hybrid Approach (2.5 days)
“Which approach balances donor protection, volunteer education, community trust, and mission continuity?”
Information Stealer Analysis (DC 12):
Volunteer Education Design (DC 15):
Stakeholder Communication (DC 20):
What Team Must Decide:
The Central Tension:
Nonprofit mission focus created volunteer trust vulnerability—now that same mission pressure tempts team to prioritize gala over donor data protection and volunteer education.
Transition to Round 3:
“You have complete technical information about FakeBat’s timeline and impact. The question now is: What kind of nonprofit do you want to be? One that protects its community through transparent, responsible data handling? Or one that prioritizes single events over the trust relationships that sustain your mission?”
Technical Status:
Stakeholder Positions:
Timeline Pressure:
Path A: Community Trust Priority (Comprehensive Response)
Actions:
Consequences:
Type Effectiveness: Volunteer Education +3, System Restoration +3, Donor Data Protection +2
DC Requirements: Donor communication (DC 20), Volunteer education design (DC 15), Sponsor negotiation (DC 18)
Path B: Balanced Mission Approach (Hybrid Response)
Actions:
Consequences:
Type Effectiveness: System Restoration +3, Donor Data Protection +2, Volunteer Education +3 (post-gala), Fundraising System Isolation +2
DC Requirements: Emergency restoration (DC 12), Targeted communication (DC 15), Volunteer education (DC 15)
Path C: Event Priority (Minimal Response)
Actions:
Consequences:
Type Effectiveness: Individual Cleanup -1, Minimizing Donor Risk -2, Postponing Education -2 (ineffective approaches compound failure)
DC Requirements: All DCs increased +5 due to data breach aftermath, trust collapse, potential nonprofit closure
Volunteer System Restoration (DC 12 for emergency, DC 15 for comprehensive):
Donor Notification (DC 15 for targeted, DC 20 for complete):
Volunteer Education Design (DC 15):
Community Trust Management (DC 20):
Victory Conditions Met:
Partial Success:
Failure:
Success Narrative Example (Path A or B):
“By Tuesday morning, all volunteer systems are restored with enhanced security. You’ve notified affected donors about the security incident and your proactive protection measures. Most donors appreciate the transparency—several corporate sponsors specifically commend your responsible data handling.
“Thursday’s gala proceeds (or is rescheduled with sponsor support) with strengthened community trust. During donor speeches, several attendees mention appreciating an organization that prioritizes their safety. One major donor increases their contribution, citing ‘the integrity Community Outreach demonstrated by being transparent about challenges.’
“Over the following week, you implement comprehensive volunteer education designed for diverse skill levels. Volunteers feel supported rather than blamed. The nonprofit becomes known as the charitable organization that chose community trust over short-term convenience—exactly the values donors want to support.”
Failure Narrative Example (Path C):
“The gala proceeds successfully Thursday—you raise $240,000. But Tuesday evening, the information stealer harvested your complete donor database. By Friday, donors report fraudulent charges using their Community Outreach saved payment methods.
“When your required data breach notification reveals you knew about the risk but chose not to warn donors, your major corporate sponsors withdraw support publicly. Local media covers ‘Nonprofit prioritized fundraising over donor data protection.’ Within two weeks, donors file complaints, volunteers resign, and the board faces crisis management.
“The $240,000 raised becomes $240,000 owed in legal costs and notification requirements. Community Outreach—built on 15 years of trust—faces closure because one decision prioritized a single event over the community relationships sustaining your mission.”
What Just Happened (Technical Summary):
Type Effectiveness Review:
Technical Learning Question:
“How would you design nonprofit technology security that supports volunteer mission flexibility while protecting donor data across diverse skill levels?”
Stakeholder Management Review:
Communication Strategies:
Collaboration Learning Question:
“How does nonprofit community trust dependency require different incident response approaches than corporate reputation management? What unique challenges does volunteer technology create?”
Scenario Themes:
Personal Reflection Questions:
Real-World Context:
Session Assessment:
Adaptation Notes for Next Time:
If Team Succeeded:
Acknowledge specific excellent decisions:
What This Victory Means:
“You protected 800 donors from identity theft. You demonstrated that nonprofit organizations can prioritize community data protection even under fundraising pressure. You showed volunteers that security supports mission rather than restricts it. Community Outreach Foundation will be known as the nonprofit that chose donor safety over event convenience—exactly the organizational integrity that builds sustainable community trust.”
May your community trust remain strong and your mission continue serving those in need!