# Donjon v5.0 - Systems Thinking Design

## Gharajedaghi's Five Principles Applied

### 1. OPENNESS
The system interacts with its environment - networks, tools, threat intelligence, compliance frameworks.
- Dynamic tool discovery and integration
- External threat feed integration
- Adaptive to network changes
- Import/export with GRC platforms

### 2. PURPOSEFULNESS
Multi-dimensional goals, not single metrics:
- Security posture improvement (not just vulnerability count)
- Detection capability validation (not just scanning)
- Compliance evidence (not just checkboxes)
- Operational resilience (not just point-in-time)

### 3. MULTIDIMENSIONALITY
Structure, function, and process are interdependent:
- Red Team (Attack) + Blue Team (Defend) + Purple Team (Integrate)
- Technical findings + Business context + Compliance mapping
- Automated scanning + Human analysis + Continuous monitoring

### 4. EMERGENT PROPERTIES
The integrated whole exceeds the sum of parts:
- Detection gap analysis emerges from red+blue integration
- Risk prioritization emerges from multi-source correlation
- Compliance posture emerges from continuous evidence collection

### 5. COUNTER-INTUITIVE BEHAVIOR
Design for the unexpected:
- What if scans are detected and blocked?
- What if the network topology changes mid-scan?
- What if tools produce false negatives?
- What would an attacker do differently?

---

## Inverse Thinking: Design from Failure Backwards

### What Could Go Wrong?
1. Scans blocked by IDS/IPS → Use evasion techniques, human-like pacing
2. Tools miss vulnerabilities → Multi-tool correlation, manual validation
3. Compliance gaps missed → Map to multiple frameworks, cross-reference
4. Evidence insufficient for auditors → Chain of custody, timestamps, hashes
5. Results become stale → Continuous monitoring, change detection

### What Would an Adversary Do?
1. Avoid detection → We simulate this to test blue team
2. Move during off-hours → We scan to detect coverage gaps
3. Use legitimate tools → We test detection of LOLBins
4. Blend with normal traffic → We test behavioral detection

---

## Red/Blue/Purple Integration Model

```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    PURPLE TEAM LOOP                         │
│                                                             │
│   ┌─────────────┐    Validates    ┌─────────────┐          │
│   │  RED TEAM   │ ───────────────→│  BLUE TEAM  │          │
│   │   Attack    │                 │   Detect    │          │
│   │  Simulate   │←───────────────│   Respond   │          │
│   └─────────────┘    Informs      └─────────────┘          │
│         │                               │                   │
│         └───────────┬───────────────────┘                   │
│                     ▼                                       │
│            ┌─────────────────┐                              │
│            │  GAP ANALYSIS   │                              │
│            │  What wasn't    │                              │
│            │  detected?      │                              │
│            └─────────────────┘                              │
│                     │                                       │
│                     ▼                                       │
│            ┌─────────────────┐                              │
│            │  IMPROVEMENT    │                              │
│            │  Close gaps,    │                              │
│            │  validate fix   │                              │
│            └─────────────────┘                              │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```

---

## Human-Like Behavior Simulation

### Why?
- Test detection of "low and slow" attacks
- Avoid triggering rate limits during assessment
- Simulate realistic adversary TTPs
- Validate behavioral detection capabilities

### How?
- Randomized delays (not fixed intervals)
- Working hours simulation
- Natural traffic patterns (bursts, pauses)
- Realistic user-agent rotation
- Session persistence like real users
- Geographic consistency

---

## Tool Integration Philosophy

### Native Kali Purple Tools
Leverage what's installed:
- nmap, nikto, nuclei, testssl.sh (scanning)
- metasploit (exploitation validation)
- yara (malware/IOC detection)
- wireshark/tshark (packet analysis)
- lynis (system hardening)
- caldera/atomic-red-team (ATT&CK simulation)

### Discovery, Not Assumption
- Auto-detect available tools at runtime
- Graceful degradation if tools missing
- Suggest installation for missing tools
- Use best available tool for each task

### Multi-Tool Correlation
- Cross-reference findings across tools
- Reduce false positives through consensus
- Increase confidence through corroboration

---

## UX Design Principles

### Terminal-First, But Beautiful
- Rich TUI with colors, progress bars, tables
- Clear visual hierarchy
- Responsive to terminal size
- Works over SSH

### Guided Workflows
- Step-by-step wizards for complex tasks
- Smart defaults with override options
- Explain what each step does

### Status Clarity
- Always show what's happening
- Estimated time remaining
- Clear success/failure indication
- Actionable error messages

### Accessibility
- Works without colors (--no-color)
- Machine-readable output (--json)
- Quiet mode for scripting
- Verbose mode for debugging
