Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Question about hacking vehicles

Posted by: JonathanC Jan 15 2007, 05:51 PM

I'm curious about how hacking enemy vehicles might work. For example:

1. During a chase, assuming the target is within the range of the hacker's commlink, could he/she hack the car directly? Most vehicles have some pretty poor Matrix stats, so this seems like it would be pretty easy to do.

2. From home, I assume the hacker would break into the grid (not too hard for a good hacker, right? I don't have a good sense of how well protected the vehicle grid is) and locate the car, and connect from there. The thing is, would driving manually (not using the grid to drive the car for you) protect you from this kind of attack?

I once had my players' GridCab hacked (seemed plausible). One of the players hacked into the cab himself and fought with the enemy hacker, but had his icon crashed. At that point someone pulled out a jammer to break off the wireless signal to the cab, which caused it to automatically pull over (I figured there have to be some kind of safety measures). They later hotwired the car to drive manually (after a firefight with the group that was pursuing them). Does this sound reasonable?

Posted by: Backgammon Jan 15 2007, 06:00 PM

Yeah. Note that security-conscious shadowrunners, unless they have a good reason (riggers), wouldn't make their car open to wireless signals. If it is though (the owner has a tendency to remote control his car, so it's wireless enabled), then you can indeed hack the crap out of it.

Posted by: Butterblume Jan 15 2007, 06:06 PM

In previous editions, grid-systems were pretty secure. And I mean Secure .
After all, someone hacking in can create really big citywide chaos.

Posted by: JonathanC Jan 15 2007, 06:20 PM

QUOTE (Backgammon)

Can you really close off a car in SR4 to wireless? What about GPS data? Is it possible to receive informational data without being open to hackers?

Man, I really wish they'd release that damn Hacker book already.

Oh, and does anyone have a general idea (numbers-wise) about how secure the grid would be? Are we talking absolutely impossible, or something that a good sneak or combat decker could get through on a good day?

Posted by: RunnerPaul Jan 15 2007, 06:22 PM

Unwired really needs to address the hackability levels of the basic infrastructure of the world, such as Gridguide and banking. If they're supposed to be as hackable as generalized computer systems are (as described by the main book), then Unwired needs to make mention of the daily chaos caused by random hackjobs. If infrastructure type systems are more secure, then we should be given rules for how much more secure, for those rare times when a runner team wants to try to exploit one of these supposedly more secure infrastructure systems to gain some sort of advantage.

Posted by: Konsaki Jan 15 2007, 06:26 PM

Yes, you can turn your vehicle's wireless function off.
What does this mean? - You now have to manually drive it yourself, either physically or jacked in through a wire

Can you still get sensory input? Only from systems that are onboard the vehicle and do not require data from outside sources. (IE, GPS is a nogo unless it's a seperate unit since it requires data from somewhere else to determine where it is, though you still get thermo/low light/sound from the onboard sensors)
You just have to determine which ones require outside data and which ones dont.
If you want to recieve data, then your systems have to be able to transmit the 'Ok, I got that info, send the next set' signal back to the source.

Remember that a 'good' system is Rating 4-5. Though that still only takes maybe 1-2 turns for a good hacker in hot sim to crack into at admin level...

Posted by: Jack Kain Jan 15 2007, 06:27 PM

You have two things the grids security and the pilot program on the vehicle's security.

It appears to me the grid aids the vehicle's pilot program however in the case of most vehicle the grid doesn't actually control the car directly.

Even if a car isn't rigger enabled you could hack the wireless signal from the grid to the pilot program and feed false data and cause the car to stop or pull over.

However if the pilot program is turned off and the vehicle isn't enabled for wireless rigging (or the wireless rigging is off). It would not be possible to hack the vehicle remotely. In most cases of the shadowrunners chasing or being chased hacking the opposing vehicle might not be an option.

Both sides would naturally wan't to drive manually one to prevent hacking and two, the cars standard pilot program isn't going to pull off any high speed manuvers during the chase.

When hacking a car you have to do it fast and with out being noticed once the alarm is raised with the flip of a switch they can switch the car to manual control and shut off any wireless signal. The best time to hack a vehicle is when the driver is unware your after him or when he's not actually in the vehicle.

Posted by: Dread Polack Jan 15 2007, 09:46 PM

QUOTE

1. During a chase, assuming the target is within the range of the hacker's commlink, could he/she hack the car directly? Most vehicles have some pretty poor Matrix stats, so this seems like it would be pretty easy to do.

First you have to detect the hidden node, since I imagine most vehicles remain hidden. Public taxis probably have RFID tags that will link you to a public node where you can schedule a trip, but otherwise, the vehicles themselves are probably almost always hidden. After that, breaking in is a normal hacking action. Non-security vehicles are considered Rating 3, unless the GM decides it's worthy of better.

QUOTE

2. From home, I assume the hacker would break into the grid (not too hard for a good hacker, right? I don't have a good sense of how well protected the vehicle grid is) and locate the car, and connect from there. The thing is, would driving manually (not using the grid to drive the car for you) protect you from this kind of attack?

First, I think the grid would be very well protected, for reasons pointed out by Butterblume. Hacking into the grid itself, IMO, wouldn't give you any kind of access to the vehicles logged in, however, you'd have to hack into them individually from there. The Grid would help you locate them, tho.

I think it's also worth thinking about user vs. security vs. admin level access. You might be able to wreak some havoc with a user-level account. You might have to do some research to find out exactly what user can do what.

I think most vehicles would be designed not to work unless they were wirelessly connected to the grid. The city probably likes having some control over traffic, and going wireless on a street might be the equivalent of going hidden in a high-security area. In some areas, you might not be allowed on the road, and in some areas a security team might be dispatched quickly.

Also, something that occurs to me is that a vehicle that has been hacked and detected might either alert the grid or Lone Star, and that an erratically-behaving vehicle (one whose actions don't jive with it's grid guide communication) might alert the grid, and possibly Lone Star as well. Just an idea.

Dread Polack

Posted by: Strobe Jan 16 2007, 02:14 AM

It would be quite lethal if you can hack the grid and standard consumer cars easily. All you would need to do it pick somewhere your target is cruising down a highway and hack the car in front and behind. Brake and accelerate accordingly and then you have a messy accident. If your target is hot property for the Star all the better when they get called to the accident.

Just a thought.

-Strobe

Posted by: kigmatzomat Jan 16 2007, 04:21 PM

I know this is so very much a house rule but c'est la vie.

IMG we still have "keyfob" remotes. It's not a separate dongle but a special program that runs on your Comm though you can get a fob if you really, really want it. Rules wise, the car acts like a secure RFID tag, meaning it doesn't respond unless you send the right code. Then, and only then, does the WiFi enable when you're outside the car.

When on the road, the vehicle's signal rating is typically 0, enough to reach GridGuide in the roadbed and communicate with the driver's Comm & AR toys. It generally doesn't need more except in the case of an emergency, when it goes to a high signal rating so it can call 911 by default.

We have the rule that anything that can be done by RFID, should be done by RFID. Identity must be public? Carry an RFID tag with your info. Vehicle Identification Number (VIN)? Integrated into the frame at multiple points. License plate? RFID enabled and references the VIN.

RFID has the advantage of being independent of power, unlike a Comm, which is important when the vehicle might get abandoned on the side of the road or be stripped for parts (like a Pilot system).

That's not to say that runners may not remove all the RFIDs from a vehicle and have a Comm configured to respond to the queries. That lets a rigger change a vehicle's identity with a command to Spoof. Of course, this means the vehicle has to run the Spoof utility at all times with WiFi on. There's typically no test required for the Spoof to broadcast the right RFID signals but if someone runs an Analyze against the car for some reason, there's a chance the Spoof will be noticed.

High security regions may also require Comms to be disabled or in public mode but it's idiotic to believe that an easily hacked device (generic Comm R1) will be required to walk into a federal building.

Posted by: celegar Jan 16 2007, 05:18 PM

kig has a really good grasp on this subject for sure. in fact im gonna definitly introduce some of this stuff into my campaign.

as for the external input from other divices and their reguards to affecting the vehicle, as long as the driving and external input are on completely separate circuits then it wouldnt be hackable, well i guess you could hack the airconditioning and maby windshield wipers, but other than that its really not plausable. personally i always run two comlinks, one with my hack programs thats nonwireless most of the time and my dummy com that has my fake sin and is full of black IC. i rout my hacking com thru my dummy com and use the dummy to put out a signal, you could do the same think with vehicles. have a control com which you use directly and another dummy com that you use to interperet your external signal, that way the hacker has to wade thought 10 or 12 black IC programs in order to get to your vehicle, and has to spend complex actions finding the node each time he steps from commlink to commlink.

Posted by: Charon Jan 16 2007, 06:47 PM

QUOTE (Dread Polack @ Jan 15 2007, 04:46 PM)

First you have to detect the hidden node, since I imagine most vehicles remain hidden.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to drive in hidden mode in 2070.

It'd be like driving without a license plate.

Of course a runner could rig it so his car's commlink is only transmiting info but not receiving any or is simply just a RFID tag of some sort.

But then the gig would be up if police officer were to try to interact with the runner's car.

QUOTE (kigmatzomat)

When on the road, the vehicle's signal rating is typically 0, enough to reach GridGuide in the roadbed and communicate with the driver's Comm & AR toys.

From p.212 :

Signal Rating 3, 400m : Vehicular autonav sensors

That's still a little short if you ask me. In 2070 you'd be able not only to receive info from the grid network, but most likely to query info too. This implies you have to be able to reach a relay station. As soon as you leave the city, no way will you find a relay station every 400 meter. Even in the city it's a stretch. Rating 5 seems more likely.

Posted by: RunnerPaul Jan 16 2007, 06:57 PM

Vehicles would probably have more than one node: one for two-way communication with the general outside world (while broadcasting of vehicle ID could be transmitted by RFID, there are other types of communication that would need a node operating in non-hidden mode), and a second node in actual control of the vehicle that operates in hidden mode, and only communicates with those outside parties that would be authorized to issue commands to the vehicle.

Posted by: Charon Jan 16 2007, 07:04 PM

QUOTE (RunnerPaul @ Jan 16 2007, 01:57 PM)

That's a nice setup for criminals (And surely they can rig it that way).

But there's no real reason why the cop wouldn't have the authority to take control of the car of a DUI who is fleeing a barrage and endangering innocent lives. And Imagine how OJ's flight would have been cut short in SR 2070!

Even with all those nasty hackers*, you have to realize the primary users of the ability to remotely override the control of a civilian car would be the authorities so there's no real reason the government and corporations would band together to defend the petty criminals.

*I suspect most us imagine hackers to be far more common than they really are due to the natural bias of playing criminals and crafting stories where hackers are integral. One of the logical way to understand why it seems so easy to hack in SR4 is to realize that there just isn't that many hacker creating havok out there.

Posted by: Dread Polack Jan 16 2007, 08:58 PM

You're probably right about the hidden mode thing.

But also something to think about: Remember that driving is a privilege, not a right. In 2070, this might be taken to a new extreme. In some sci-fi futures, citizens are no longer allowed to drive; it's controlled by a central computer. I guess when congestion gets bad enough, and dangerous enough, we'll be better off letting a computer figure it all out for us.

Of course, in the US, we're very independent and take pride in our possessions, such as our cars. Taking control of our vehicles away from us would not be greeted with enthusiasm, but like I said, it's a privilege, not a right, and if day-to-day driving gets dangerous enough, the government doesn't have to let us.

I know this is the case in MN, maybe not in all the states...

Dread Polack

Posted by: cetiah Jan 16 2007, 09:42 PM

In my campaign,

A vehicle has a built in commlink, usually with rather minimal ratings. There are tons of advantages to having a vehicle on the matrix including recieving traffic updates, plotting useful routes, instantly identifying the profile of other vehicles and maybe leaving friendly comments to fellow drivers, being alerted to road hazards, construction zones, or other legal restrictions in real time, and most importantly, downloading music and trideo from Matrix broadcast stations which can display as transparent images on the windshield.

Commlinks are cheap, there's no reason not to include them. That being said, someone isn't really going to hack from their car and its not going to have programs and will likely have all its attributes at 1, or maybe whatever the pilot is by default.

But none of that matters for the question posted above. The vehicle's computer recognises the registered user's commlink and surrenders all control to that commlink's node. The two commlinks are effectively one. They'll probably configure themselves automatically to the most optimal configuration (since I picture most cars as being able to mount better Signal systems than the average wristband commlink).

So you have to hack into the user's commlink using the user's commlink's Firewall. Then, all the programs and attributes of that commlink oppose any instructions you try to send to the car. Most commlinks will be passive, but not hidden.

So yes, you could hack into someone's car. And I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to take control of it, although getting control back might be as easy as turning off (or ripping out) the pilot system. Hardware + Logic (1).

When hacking a vehicle, you can't actually control the car like a rigger does, but you can send simple instructions to the pilot. It's likely that the car's own pilot system, however, will provide penalties to your tests if you try to instruct the car to do something illegal, suicidal, or something that will circumvent traffic.

If you are located in an A-rated location or better, you get a -4 penalty to your tests to instruct the vehicle to do something illegal or suicidal. You could otherwise send any other basic command that the user could such as, "plot the best course to this address and drive to that location, following all necessary traffic laws and gridguide regulations". Anyone transmitting with a legitimate law-authority-code would get a +4 bonus to command the vehicle to "pull over and shutdown" or "lock all doors and drive to nearest detention center". Tests to open doors, windows, change radio stations, or the like, recieve no bonus or penalty.

These penalties apply for both hacking and for basic driving. If you try to manually drive your car off a cliff, the car will try to stop you. These features may not necessarily be built into a vehicle that was sold in a D, E, or Z-rated location. In those places, one can fairly easily acquire alternate devices that provide a method for ending high speed chases. These devices are listed in the "Firearms" section of the equipment guide.

Edit: Law enforcement agencies don't have to hack your car. They're a legitimate user. It's a Computer+Logic skill against the vehicle's driving skill + Reaction. In an A-rating location or better, the law-enforcer recieves no bonus but the user recieves a -4 penalty to opposing the check, just as if he was giving it an illegal command like driving into another car.

Edit: It is assumed that most players, gangs, security personnell, and maybe even law officers have these helpful override "features" removed prior to the start of the game. It would make car chases no fun at all. Although, it would be funny if grid-guided recognised the car chase participants as a hazard and tried to adjust traffic accordingly. (Just about every convinience of the matrix is a "suggestion" from the matrix for players and key characters. For average citizens, these suggestions are "commands". For example, the average citizen can't drink milk after the expiration date. The refridgerator won't let them. But we have to assume the vampire could store blood in there without the chem-sniffers alerting the poison control center.)

Posted by: cetiah Jan 16 2007, 10:03 PM

Always remember the Golden Rules or 2070:

1.) Convinience is more important than security.

2.) Profit is more important than safety.

Posted by: RunnerPaul Jan 17 2007, 09:08 PM

QUOTE (Charon)

QUOTE (RunnerPaul @ Jan 16 2007, 01:57 PM)

And where did I say that Police wouldn't be listed among "outside parties that would be authorized to issue commands to the vehicle" in a stock vehicle?

Posted by: bait Jan 17 2007, 11:45 PM

Another factor to consider, not all devices/functions would be accessible via wireless.

For example a remote door lock would not allow you to control the vehicles steering system.

Thats one reason why rigging gear is an add on for most vehicles.

Posted by: JonathanC Jan 18 2007, 12:55 AM

QUOTE (bait)

Yes, but any vehicle with a pilot rating has some way for commands to be given to the vehicle electronically...if anything, you could upload a rogue pilot program that would crash the vehicle for you, right?

Posted by: bait Jan 18 2007, 01:06 AM

QUOTE

Yes, but any vehicle with a pilot rating has some way for commands to be given to the vehicle electronically

It would use wired connection to do this as wireless would be pointless in a non-remote operate vehicle.

QUOTE

.if anything, you could upload a rogue pilot program that would crash the vehicle for you, right?

In order to upload a program in a hardwire system you'd have to have physical access to the device running the autopilot, a wireless system provides less security for this as it would simply require proximity in order to be potentially vulnerable. ( Heck you could could intercept and edit the commands between the autopilot and the vehicle with wireless.)

Posted by: Jaid Jan 18 2007, 01:07 AM

QUOTE (bait)

QUOTE

Yes, but any vehicle with a pilot rating has some way for commands to be given to the vehicle electronically

It would use wired connection to do this as wireless would be pointless in a non-remote operate vehicle.

QUOTE

.if anything, you could upload a rogue pilot program that would crash the vehicle for you, right?

i thought it was canon that gridguide could drive a car for you... and that, therefore, all vehicles are, by default remotely operable.

Posted by: bait Jan 18 2007, 01:30 AM

QUOTE (Jaid)

i thought it was canon that gridguide could drive a car for you... and that, therefore, all vehicles are, by default remotely operable.

Nope, remote operation is provided through rigging adaptation and so far only drones include it in the price of the vehicle.

Pg 238 Drones

... Passenger vehicles or larger passenger drones are not usually pre-adapted, but can be adapted quickly by the manufacturer, mechanic, or even a rigger character.

If you look at the vehicle section, the only ones with rigger adaption built in are the drones.

This doesn't mean that certain non-pilot functions aren't wireless enabled. ( Remote door locks, ignition starter, environmental controls would be good candidates. )

Of course, with the prevalence of wireless crime, it would be smart to limit these functions to there own wireless functions.

Posted by: Jaid Jan 18 2007, 02:34 AM

sure, rigger adaptation is required to *rig* the vehicle, but there's two ways that don't require that you rig the vehicle to remotely operate it.

1) give it commands. all vehicles with a pilot rating can drive themselves.
2) remote control, ala command program.

neither of those require that you jump in, and therefore neither of those require rigger adaptation.

Posted by: bait Jan 18 2007, 03:41 AM

QUOTE (Jaid)

Rigger adaption is more then allowing rigging ( The jumping in part), it provides direct control of the vehicles control systems and there outputs. ( Also seems to upgrade the pilot system with expansion capabilities aka autosofts.)

From the description of the rigger adaption it also seems to provide both wired and wireless access to the control systems as well, otherwise you stuck interacting with the autopilot.

However, there is another sneaky little trick you can pull with an non-rigger adapted vehicle however.

The sensors seem to pick up input from traffic control systems, so you could use wireless interception of the traffic control system to edit commands to the autopilot.

See my entry in the following thread.

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=16266

Posted by: mfb Jan 18 2007, 04:07 AM

QUOTE (RunnerPaul)

If they're supposed to be as hackable as generalized computer systems are (as described by the main book), then Unwired needs to make mention of the daily chaos caused by random hackjobs.

the random hacking won't be the problem. the real problem will be all the people who accidentally bump into the loopholes and bugs that hackers deliberately take advantage of. for every gutterpunk hacker that does it on purpose, there will be a hundred wageslaves doing it by accident.

Posted by: Jaid Jan 18 2007, 04:08 AM

QUOTE (SR4 pg 341 @ rigger adaptation)

When added to a vehicle, this
â€œblack boxâ€? allows a character with a control rig (see p. 331)
to rig the vehicle (see Rigging and Drones, p. 238), either
through a direct fiberoptic cable or wireless link.

that's what rigger adaptation does. nothing about allowing remote control or not that i can see, and nothing about autosofts. vehicles have a built in pilot rating, which pilot rating allows the vehicle to drive itself if needed. remote controlling the vehicle is therefore possible provided you have the appropriate tools: a command program, an appropriate commlink, and a connection to the vehicle (generally wireless, but not necessarily i suppose).

Posted by: bait Jan 18 2007, 05:09 AM

QUOTE

remote controlling the vehicle is therefore possible provided you have the appropriate tools: a command program, an appropriate commlink, and a connection to the vehicle (generally wireless, but not necessarily i suppose)

The key is connection to the vehicle, without a remote connection theres no way to issue commands to it.

Thats where the rigger adaption comes into play, it provides the link between the vehicle and the controller. ( As an added bonus it allows full access to riggers who actually get an advantage to it, hence the reason for riggers being your professional drivers / pilots.)

Of course as I've mention there are other ways to get the vehicle to go where you want it to without having direct control of it. ( My suggestion about using wireless interception and editing commands via the link between sensors and traffic control systems ( City Grid.))

Posted by: Jaid Jan 18 2007, 05:30 AM

QUOTE (bait)

QUOTE

all vehicles have a device rating. included in that device rating is a signal rating. therefore, all vehicles potentially have a remote connection, which can simply be routed through the exact same system the drone pilot uses to operate the vehicle, which is built into every vehicle that has a pilot rating.

all vehicles, by default, can be remote controlled. if you want a vehicle that cannot be remote controlled, you must set it up yourself.

Posted by: bait Jan 18 2007, 05:59 AM

Pg. 159 Sensors

Almost all vehicles in shadowrun have some kind of sensor array, if only to interact with GridGuide and other traffic network systems.

The signal strength is for the sensor range, not for system control.

As for the vehicle Pilot its limited in what it can do, as the Pilot rating handles the attribute part of the Success test, its still needs autosofts in order to cover skill portions.

Besides remote controlling a vehicle without rigger adaption puts you at the mercy of the autopilot, which isn't very adaptive. ( It would also have a hard time running autosofts as you'd have to load them yourself over the link.)

Posted by: Charon Jan 18 2007, 07:52 AM

QUOTE (RunnerPaul @ Jan 17 2007, 04:08 PM)

QUOTE (Charon @ Jan 16 2007, 02:04 PM)

QUOTE (RunnerPaul @ Jan 16 2007, 01:57 PM)

And where did I say that Police wouldn't be listed among "outside parties that would be authorized to issue commands to the vehicle" in a stock vehicle?

But... why the hell bother with two nodes then?

Hacker can hack that anyway. They'd be an "outside party that isn't authorized to isse commands to the vehicle but does it anyway because he's a hacker and that's what he does."

And then the manufacturer just wasted time and ressources.

Posted by: bait Jan 18 2007, 08:05 AM

Wireless control of a vehicle is very dangerous, what happens if it runs outside of network coverage or into a jammer?

Posted by: kigmatzomat Jan 18 2007, 03:55 PM

Again, house ruling stuff.

IMG the vehicles are self-piloted but receive guidance from Grid Guide. GG says "I5 is backed up from exit 13 to exit 22, traffic near exit 13 to exit 16 is very heavy, moderately heavy from exit 17 to 20, and typical from 20 to 22" and the vehicle's pilot decides whether the best route to its destination is to brave I5 or switch to the surface roads.

All standard autopilot vehicles are autonomous rather than remote-operated. With that guideline, a hacker who breaks into a standard vehicle can't just slew the cars wheels to the left and cause a crash. Without Rigger adapation the car is operated by the Pilot and the Command utility is useless beyond instructing the pilot remotely. Its really little different from using voice command from within the vehicle.

However a hacker can do tricks with Edit that screw with the Pilot, like changing the GPS maps in memory or injecting false sensor data. They don't tell the pilot to brake in the middle of the freeway, they trick the pilot into believing there is a semi stalled fifty feet ahead. Maybe the pilot swerves the car or slams on the brakes, that's up to the Pilot.

Naturally they can also crash the Pilot but we have a "dumb drive" system assumed in stock vehicles. When the Pilot goes catatonic, a fail-safe system kicks in. It's a Pilot 1 hardwired into the controls and sensors that's sole job is to find a safe place to park the car. The failsafe is disconnected from all wireless networks, even grid guide. It does have an emergency beacon (broadcast only, not a 2-way device) that essentially screams "OH GOD IT HURTS LET ME OVER" so that the other nearby vehicles can make room and alert the authorities.

You can thank the chaos of Crash 2.0 for that doohicky. When millions of Grid Guide connected vehicles all had their Pilot go insane at the same time, the autonomous safety system became a requirement on all Piloted vehicles.

Naturally, runners and riggers tend to disable those safety systems to avoid attention or the loss of control and use a rather simple hack to sound an alert in the passenger compartment and switch the vehicle to manual driving mode (y'know, with the steering wheel?) if there's a failure with the Pilot.

Posted by: RunnerPaul Jan 18 2007, 07:38 PM

QUOTE (Charon)

QUOTE (RunnerPaul @ Jan 17 2007, 04:08 PM)

And where did I say that Police wouldn't be listed among "outside parties that would be authorized to issue commands to the vehicle" in a stock vehicle?

But... why the hell bother with two nodes then?

Because a node can not be both in Hidden and Active Mode at the same time.

Running in Hidden Mode is an excelent place to start when defending a node from wireless hacking, and yet, there many things a vehicle's onboard node does that would require it to be in Active Mode.

So, when you have two modes you'd want to run your vehicle's node in, but it can't run them both at the same time, you split the functions across two nodes.

Posted by: Charon Jan 18 2007, 07:48 PM

QUOTE (RunnerPaul)

QUOTE (Charon @ Jan 18 2007, 02:52 AM)

QUOTE (RunnerPaul @ Jan 17 2007, 04:08 PM)

And where did I say that Police wouldn't be listed among "outside parties that would be authorized to issue commands to the vehicle" in a stock vehicle?

But... why the hell bother with two nodes then?

If it's hidden, it's also hidden to the proper authorities who might have a legitimate reason for stopping the car.

That's really a setup for criminals any way you look at it.

Posted by: Charon Jan 18 2007, 07:51 PM

QUOTE (bait)

Wireless control of a vehicle is very dangerous, what happens if it runs outside of network coverage or into a jammer?

Controls reverts to autopilot or manual.

Posted by: kigmatzomat Jan 18 2007, 09:34 PM

QUOTE (Charon)

QUOTE (RunnerPaul @ Jan 18 2007, 02:38 PM)

So, when you have two modes you'd want to run your vehicle's node in, but it can't run them both at the same time, you split the functions across two nodes.

If it's hidden, it's also hidden to the proper authorities who might have a legitimate reason for stopping the car.

That's really a setup for criminals any way you look at it.

I think the idea might be that the active comm is actually a dummy cut-out, broadcasting a valid signal and mirroring all the appropriate signals that "Tha Man" expects you send but that doesn't actually respond to commands to shut down or stop like a legitimate user.

That's the equivalent IMC of ripping out all the RFID tags and setting up a comm to make all the responses dynamically.

Posted by: bait Jan 18 2007, 10:04 PM

QUOTE

However a hacker can do tricks with Edit that screw with the Pilot, like changing the GPS maps in memory or injecting false sensor data. They don't tell the pilot to brake in the middle of the freeway, they trick the pilot into believing there is a semi stalled fifty feet ahead. Maybe the pilot swerves the car or slams on the brakes, that's up to the Pilot.

In order to do that directly the hacker would need to gain physical access to the Pilot system, however as I mentioned earlier theres an easier way of doing this.

Even though the vehicle doesn't have wireless access, its sensors still pickup information from the GridGuide ( Or equivalent.).

Use wireless interception and use Edit to change the commands on the fly.

The added advantage is the interception is undetectable. ( Of course the changes in vehicle behaviour is another story. )

This is also how LE can also take control of rogue vehicles if they need to, and they can get access directly to GridGuide.

Posted by: RunnerPaul Jan 20 2007, 08:16 AM

QUOTE (Charon)

If it's hidden, it's also hidden to the proper authorities who might have a legitimate reason for stopping the car.

Read the section on Hidden Mode on p.211. A wireless node in Hidden Mode is only invisible to other nodes that are not authorized to see it. It is however, visible to those nodes that have been authorized. Again, where have I said that the proper authorities wouldn't be on that authorized list?

Posted by: Gauvain Jan 23 2007, 08:34 PM

QUOTE (cetiah)

When hacking a vehicle, you can't actually control the car like a rigger does

In SR4, riggers are hackers and vice versa. It's only a matter of the Command program and the appropriate vehicle and gunnery skills.

Posted by: Leehouse Jan 24 2007, 04:52 AM

QUOTE (Gauvain)

QUOTE (cetiah @ Jan 16 2007, 04:42 PM)

When hacking a vehicle, you can't actually control the car like a rigger does

In SR4, riggers are hackers and vice versa. It's only a matter of the Command program and the appropriate vehicle and gunnery skills.

But specifically you can't jump into a vehicle because it doesn't have the rigger adaptation installed(unless it does of course, then assuming you hack in and subscribe to it you're fully capable of jumping in.)

Posted by: celegar Jan 25 2007, 08:40 PM

id just say that any vehicle that can be given commands to either drive itself using a pilot or rigged can be hacked and ordered to do things that you could do as if you were driving said vehicle.