Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Signal Jamming with Commlink
Posted by: The Jopp Jan 16 2007, 12:29 PM
Software Jamming
(Electronic Warfare + Attack) VS (Signal + ECCM)
A character who has intercepted a wireless signal can attempt to scramble the connection and effectively jam the signal. The attacker inserts a random stream of data and tries to disrupt the connection.
Make an opposed test and any net successes reduce the signal rating by one for each net success. ECCM adds to the signals rating for calculating signal as normal.
What do you think? It's not a blanket jamming of an area but rather a disruption of a specifik signal.
Posted by: Dashifen Jan 16 2007, 02:38 PM
I like it. I wonder if is shouldn't be Electronic Warfare + Edit vs. Signal + ECCM to represent the alteration of the original signal, but that's probably immaterial. It's a nice idea either way.
Posted by: The Jopp Jan 16 2007, 02:49 PM
| QUOTE (Dashifen) |
| I like it. I wonder if is shouldn't be Electronic Warfare + Edit vs. Signal + ECCM to represent the alteration of the original signal, but that's probably immaterial. It's a nice idea either way. |
Well, the reason I choose the attack program was from it's description:
| QUOTE |
| Attack programs are hostile code carriers that attempt to kill processes, introduce random input, create buffer overflows or program faults, and otherwise make a program/icon crash. |
I focused on the part of killing processes and introducing random input as an attempt to disrupt the connection or to insert as much random noise into the signal as possible.
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 16 2007, 03:38 PM
I think this is a very cool idea.
Using Attack seems somehow wrong to me. I see your point, but it still seems very different. Of course, I'm not sure what should be used either. Honestly, I think it's worth considering making into it's own program entirely. It's a pretty powerful idea, and that would add some balance.
Also, the quality of the jamming (i.e. program rating) should probably be limited to the program rating (as normal) OR the commlink's signal rating, whichever is lower. A cheap commlink with a few dozen meter range just shouldn't be able to "talk loud enough" to jam a powerful transmitter effectively.
Posted by: cetiah Jan 16 2007, 08:39 PM
Awesome. I like!
I have some comments though. Let me know what you think:
1) You might want to use the word "distortion" instead of jamming since that seems to be cause some confusion. Jamming tends to imply interference rather than distortion, given the way the rules read.
2) Who opposes this test? Is it the sender or the reciever? I could kind of see the argument for both, but I think the reciever would make more sense. Can you "jam" someone at your location to prevent them from calling for help (or at least giving accurate details)? Could you "jam" someone who was with you to prevent them from properly recieving all incoming transmissions? Could you be sitting in your home and "jam" some random phonecall you found on the Matrix? Could you choose either the sender or the reciever? Can you sit at home, see a news broadcast you don't like, and then get online and "jam" its transmission?
3) If successful, the reciever just gets Noise. Would this count as "encrypted" or just be totally useless?
4) I agree that the description of Attack sounds appropriate enough, but I'm with Moon-Hawk. I think it should be its own program. Although, I'm personally of the opinion there should be different Attack programs much like there are different weapons, but that's niether here nor there...
5) Why Signal? Signal of reciever or signal of sender? Neither seems to make sense under your description of how this "jamming" works. Firewall doesn't really make sense either, but given that its the omni-defense against all hacking assaults as things stand now, why not use Firewall + ECCM?
Posted by: djinni Jan 16 2007, 08:43 PM
| QUOTE (The Jopp) |
| What do you think? It's not a blanket jamming of an area but rather a disruption of a specifik signal. |
seems great for if you don't know the origin point...but...
wouldn't it be faster easier and just altogether more effective to shoot the comlink with a taser?
Posted by: Serbitar Jan 16 2007, 08:47 PM
You might not be there!
Comments:
- why restrict to wireless?
-Signal should be irrelevant. As this is purely about data integrity. Make the test:
Electronic warfare + X vs System + ECCM
- Let the weakest link (sender, reciever) do the test (per number of dice)
Posted by: cetiah Jan 16 2007, 08:49 PM
| QUOTE (djinni @ Jan 16 2007, 03:43 PM) |
| seems great for if you don't know the origin point...but... wouldn't it be faster easier and just altogether more effective to shoot the comlink with a taser? |
You could always tell when a street jam tries to post on the hacker forums...
You think all your problems can be dealt with just be shooting whatever's bothering you? You're probably right, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try for a little style, a little finesse. It's the Wireless World after all; he who controls the signal controls the world!!! Muahahahahaha!
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Jan 16 2007, 08:51 PM
The rules for finding and supressing a specific connection using are found in the Electronic Warfare Chapter.
Posted by: Serbitar Jan 16 2007, 09:09 PM
Not software jamming that can sever non-wireless connections.
Though, I think it should be much harder, because you could throw back a hacker into his home node by severing his data trail.
Posted by: djinni Jan 16 2007, 10:09 PM
| QUOTE (cetiah) |
| he who controls the signal controls the world!!! Muahahahahaha! |
if there's no signal you control nothing...
Posted by: Dashifen Jan 16 2007, 10:50 PM
| QUOTE (djinni @ Jan 16 2007, 05:09 PM) | ||
if there's no signal you control nothing... |
But you can't stop the signal
Posted by: cetiah Jan 16 2007, 11:07 PM
| QUOTE (djinni) | ||
if there's no signal you control nothing... |
Control is an illusion. Power, control, even the world - these are transitory, illusionary beliefs of our limited existance. Only two things really exist - Signal and Noise, and the battle between the two is the only true constant worth believing in.
Y0u can n3v3r st0p the s1gnal.
Posted by: djinni Jan 17 2007, 12:06 AM
| QUOTE (cetiah) |
| Y0u can n3v3r st0p the s1gnal. |
bzzzzzzt.
I just did
Posted by: yoippari Jan 17 2007, 07:01 AM
Actually if you "Attack" their drivers you might be able to sever the signal between the signal "chip" and the system. Of course then you probably couldn't do anything with their commlink, but it would get it out of the way for a while.
Posted by: bait Jan 18 2007, 12:28 AM
Its already covered in the rules.
First locate the wireless target.
Electronic Warfare + Scan ( Variable target number)
Second Intercept its wireless signal
Electronic Warfare + Sniffer ( 3)
Third decrypt the signal
Decrypt + Response ( 2x encryption)
Fourth insert static
Computer + Edit per combat turn
This method can't be detected due to step two, and allows you to avoid having to connect to the device in question.
The drawback is the time limit imposed by the edit command when your not in control of the device rather then the signal.
Heck you can even get snippy, once you've established the intercept you can get an Agent to continue to loop the Edit leaving you to enjoy what ever else your doing.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)