A scenario is a detailed path that imagines a specific, realistic adversary attempt along a pathway. It includes additional information such as tasks, defeat techniques, equipment, possible collusion with an insider, etc.. It can also include indirect attacks on PPS components. Numerous scenarios exist for each pathway. Insider collusion can include the insider tampering with alarm communication to thwart detection, the delay, or the response force. Table 1 shows an example of a scenario for a sabotage pathway.
|Fence||Four adversaries bridge fence using a ladder carried in from a vehicle parked outside at night||Fence sensor bypassed||Random patrol has 0.02 probability of detecting intrusion|
|Protected Area||Two adversaries use stealth to avoid guards and run behind the rear of the building||No sensors||Random patrol has 0.02 probability of detecting intrusion|
|Wall||Adversaries use linear shaped explosives to penetrate wall||Night personnel hears explosion and notifies response force||Patrol dispatched to investigate|
|Door||Two adversaries penetrate door using illicit ID card provided by insider||Door alarm bypassed||Patrol detects damaged wall and radios in alarm, response force mobilized|
|Target||Two adversaries destroy pump with linear shaped charge. All adversaries retreat||Water pressure alarm||Response force does not arrive in time to protect pump|
Scenarios must be conservative, credible and consistent. Conservative scenarios mean that the maximum capabilities of the DBT are used with conservative performance of PPS elements. Credibility implies that the scenario is within the scope of the DBT and that the success of multiple consecutive and complex tasks is improbable. Typically, the simpler the scenario the more credible it is. Consistency means that the scenario makes sense, meaning that the performance of PPS elements are consistent with the equipment used by the adversary and that force does not precede defeat.
Page 29 / 33