Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: longbowrocks Jun 28 2011, 02:53 PM

So, I've been meaning to ask this for a while, but only just remembered:
What hacker actions require mutual signal range? The book says "most do" and then never mentions it again. I would say anything that requires feedback requires mutual signal range, so things like sending commands to your drones would not require it.
Does this pop up somewhere in the rules, or is it really a house rule thing?

Posted by: Ascalaphus Jun 28 2011, 03:04 PM

There's probably a section about it in Unwired, but I don't like Unwired.

I think this is an area where common sense and a basic understand of computer suffice to make adequate GM calls.

Posted by: hobgoblin Jun 28 2011, 03:27 PM

I think it gets "abandoned" because runner more often then not operate in areas where the hacker can route traffic via the matrix.

Other then that i think most scenarios would involve some kind of broadcast. Like a sensor transmitting readings.

Posted by: Blog Jun 28 2011, 03:44 PM

I have had it used against me though.

Facility could scramble some flying drones. The drones only had wireless enabled when doing a flyby of a predesignated hot-spot that had a very short range transmission. They were not rigged so that made them slightly less annoying, but very difficult to try and interfere with their programming.

I would suspect nearly all wireless communication follows a hand-shaking model (Node A and B need to talk back and forth to negotiate communication) and would therefore apply the need for mutual signal range. Exceptions can occur though. For example you have a strong transmitter which sends signals straight to a device 10km away (1 hop), the return signals then would traverse across the matrix to return (many hops)

Posted by: Redjack Jun 28 2011, 04:10 PM

See below.

Posted by: Adarael Jun 28 2011, 04:21 PM

In a nutshell, any matrix activity that requires two-way communication requires mutual signal range. For instance, hacking, file editing, browsing, cybercombat... But not spoofing a command (it's a fire-and-forget), decrypting wireless traffic (you just need to hear it, not broadcast back), or searching for a hidden node (again, you just need to hear it).

Posted by: Tanegar Jun 28 2011, 04:28 PM

So? Just because all drones can be rigged doesn't mean they are rigged all the time.

Posted by: Redjack Jun 28 2011, 05:20 PM

The context appeared that the drones lacked "rigger adaption", not that they were "jumped into" as it appears you are implying.

Posted by: suoq Jun 28 2011, 06:38 PM

I know of no matrix activity that does not require mutual signal range by raw. I can justify house rules for the ones you've specified but I can also justify every matrix activity requiring mutual signal range.

As an example, it's perfectly plausible that each signal level is a different TYPE of antenna or protocol, so that a transmission being broadcast at a signal power of 5 requires a device with a signal of 5 to receive it*. I see no reason a device can't multi-band it's transmissions. However, that's clearly a house justification for mutual signal range. Likewise, claiming spoofing is Fire-and-forget as opposed to command/response/authentication is a house rule for one way spoofing.

If someone can point me to some RAW that says some matrix activities are one-way and specifies which ones, I'd appreciate it.

Posted by: squee_nabob Jun 28 2011, 07:18 PM

You need either mutual signal range, or a matrix path to subscribe. Many matrix actions can only be preformed on nodes you are subscribed to.

Posted by: Blog Jun 28 2011, 07:38 PM

My context was the following:
The drones were not actively rigged by a person, therefore the task was easier as they was a slight delay on adapting to changing situations. They had to either be given the orders up front and hope the pilot understood, or wait for a flyby to get updated orders to the changing battle.

The drones did have rigger adaptation, but due to their current config there wouldn't be a constant signal to facilitate the communication (legit or hacking).

IE the windows were so narrow hacking was next to impossible.

Posted by: Redjack Jun 28 2011, 07:54 PM

So they are dropping in and out of signal range? ergo in and out of the matrix? and the signal rating of the drones was something like a 1 (40m range) or 0 (3m range)?

Posted by: KarmaInferno Jun 28 2011, 08:01 PM

I can see that happening. My PC rigger's drones are set up to attempt to use beam link whenever possible (laser or microwave), and failing that they only use Radio in short bursts, adjusting their Signal rating to the minimum needed to maintain connections. They drop to Matrix routing only as a last resort. Maximum network defenses, of course.



-k

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 28 2011, 09:30 PM

It seems pretty obvious which things need a mutual signal (i.e., basically all of them), though there are a couple major questionable areas. The biggest is Spoofing, I'd say; AFAIK, the consensus is that spoofing commands does not require a two-way connection. Others include broadcasting a help call or Issued Command, Jamming, etc.

Posted by: Sengir Jun 28 2011, 09:50 PM

Now if you can provide a piece of RAW which says "hacking is only possible when standing right next to the node"...

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 28 2011, 10:05 PM

Why would you neeed that? Mutual Signal Range can be gained through Matrix Relay.

Posted by: HunterHerne Jun 28 2011, 10:11 PM

Which is why most (if not all) corporate nodes should have a very secure gate node, sort of a front desk you have to go to after looking at the foyer (the public node), and every non-public node in the building should have almost no signal range, or be hard wired.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 28 2011, 10:14 PM

No Arguments there... problem is that it is WAY more convenient to not do that. And as you well know, Convenience drives more advancement than does security.

Posted by: HunterHerne Jun 28 2011, 10:35 PM

While true, what are your thoughts on nodes slaved to the same node talking to each other? Even if they have to go through that other node.

Posted by: Mongoose Jun 28 2011, 10:44 PM

That's actually pretty clever- if you have decent quality pilot programs, its a good way to avoid drone hacking. Assuming the protocols exist, you could even keep tabs on what the "drones" (actually pretty much robots, in this case) are doing by having them broadcast sensor imagery, effectively making them operate in "broadcast only, do not receive" mode. That way you still know if one of them runs into trouble. Hell, you could even remove the CAPACITY to receive wireless, and just have them pick up new orders by docking at a port (likely charging batteries at the same time).

Posted by: Aku Jun 28 2011, 10:46 PM

Heres why that little sentence basically fell off the books:

Everything requires a mutual signal range. BUT because everything is wireless, as long as you're in range of something that can get range on something else that can get range on your target, you're good!

So even if theres 50 bajillion miles between you and your target, as long as theres a wireless node within signal range of another node all the way down the line. You're good.

Posted by: suoq Jun 28 2011, 10:58 PM

Honestly, that makes no sense to me. That implies that everything that's wireless is also open and deliberately functions as a repeater. I can see that as the default setting on commlinks. I can even see the owners of area requiring all commlinks in the area need to be open and serving as repeaters. I can see the owners of an area providing public repeaters. I can't see them allowing public traffic through their sensitive networks.

X device is NOT on the Matrix seems to be a natural result of the shadowrun environment. Runners may want a public commlink but I can see them also wanting a very private commlink. CAS installations do not want some NAN technomancer coming in over the matrix to their private little world. If I was in charge of GangNet, I'd have my matrix link dump all of today's new porn down to chip, scan that chip, and upload it to GangNet. I don't need any suits hopping on my channels.

Posted by: Aku Jun 28 2011, 11:00 PM

Does it make sense? no not really, but thems the rules. Wireless is on by default. in Theory, you could hack your way down a street, by jumping from lamp post to lamp post, which has wireless for...who knows what...

Posted by: HunterHerne Jun 28 2011, 11:44 PM

The infrastructure is still likely wired, and the commlinks are designed to work like that so a concentrated attack on a few places can't take down the whole matrix (a la Crash 2.0). However, just because they all work like a retrans unit, doesn't mean they have access to your precious files, which is where all the stuff on security comes from, be it shortened wireless, wired, IC/black IC, gateway nodes, wireless inhibiting paint/wallpaper, even underground complexes, or orbitals. It is also possible to do the old "Nothing is saved to my main computer, and the data storage one doesn't have wireless", if you want to. I know all my sensitive corp information is usually saved on a series of these in the institutions I do up, and/or on commlinks that "never" leave the compound.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 28 2011, 11:49 PM

I dunno why people have trouble with this. The Matrix 2.0 is fundamentally based on the assumption that there's an automagic mesh. If you reject that assumption, prepare for trouble.

Posted by: HunterHerne Jun 29 2011, 12:57 AM

Well, to be fair, when the fluff seems to disagree, like with all the drones with retrans, it's not hard to understand why people get so confused.

Posted by: DWC Jun 29 2011, 01:25 AM

Drones have retrans because nodes in Hidden Mode aren't part of the mesh. It let's you push the matrix without having an easily traced node hanging out in space.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 29 2011, 01:50 AM

That, and the Retrans Unit has a much higher Signal than most (all?) drones.

Posted by: Redjack Jun 29 2011, 01:51 AM

Also, it should be noted that the term being tossed around as "retrans" is not equivalent to what is currently known in networking as "broadcast" (ergo: bridged), rather it is equatable to "routing". Routing is discriminate about the traffic to pass traffic the correct to the correct destination and not to pass traffic that need not be passed. There is also a difference between PAN connected and matrix connected. Some of the authors have even suggested that matrix connections via mesh vs matrix connections via a matrix provider can also be selected much like you can choose you 802.11 connections today and even reject all ad-hoc connections.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 29 2011, 02:05 AM

What is true is that you rarely have to worry about connectivity and range in 'populated' areas, unless they're specifically making you (Hidden nodes, wifi inhibitors, etc.). Whether this is logical or believable is a question for the house rulers.

Posted by: suoq Jun 29 2011, 02:56 AM

You get trouble either way. If there is an automatic mesh then the whole "It's only connected by skinlink and therefore is unhackable" goes away. The same logic that lets characters disconnect from the matrix is the same logic that lets everyone disconnect from the matrix.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 29 2011, 05:02 AM

Oh, I agree. I'm just saying you definitely can't expect things to make sense if you deny the basic facts. It's a tenuous shared agreement, the Matrix 2.0 is.

Posted by: Ascalaphus Jun 29 2011, 08:06 AM

I don't see what all the fuss is about..

Most of the time, the Matrix works just fine, meshing and ad-hoccing away. But now and then you have a mission in an area with jamming, or interfering radiation, or deep underground, or far away from civilization. And that's when the retrans drones and mods become necessary.

So, just because a retrans drone exists, doesn't mean the Matrix needs them to function normally inside Civilization™.

Posted by: Inu Jun 29 2011, 09:49 AM

It still works fine; your commlink is only part of the automagic mesh if it's in Active mode. If it's Hidden or Passive, it doesn't get used as a router. So you keep your public commlink on Active and connected to nothing in your PAN, you keep your black commlink on Hidden and everything else skinlinked to that one. The black commlink is still hackable as long as its wireless is on -- it's just harder to find. If your smartgun is connected to your black commlink, then it CAN be hacked, they just have to go through the commlink first.

But that's not telling you anything new. It's the way it's always worked. And the way it works today, really. If you want to be 'unhackable', disable your connections. It's the only way.

Posted by: hobgoblin Jun 29 2011, 11:19 AM

I think the retrans drone in Unwired is a holdover from past editions where drone rigging was a bit like a oversized RC setup.

Under those rules you could only send drones as far as your remote control deck could get a signal.

In a way, drone rigging have lost some of its bite with the consolidation of rigging and matrix.

Posted by: Sengir Jun 29 2011, 11:44 AM

You would need that because "mutual signal range" means that the two devices can "hear" each other DIRECTLY, not via routing over intermediate nodes.

SR4A, p. 222:
When two devices are within the range of the lowest Signal rating of the two, they are said to be in mutual Signal range; this is required for direct device-to device communication and for other applications.

So if nearly all matrix actions did indeed require mutual signal range, hacking and rigging would be completely gimped.

Posted by: StevenAngier Jun 29 2011, 11:56 AM

Or it would simply take away the wind out of the sails for the "SR4 is all about hacking!" and "I NEED to be unhackable"bunch. As it is not THAT likely to be hacked on the fly just by being on the streets.

Posted by: Redjack Jun 29 2011, 12:32 PM

I don't think anyone is implying that mutual signal range is required for anything other than device to device communication. However, if a node/drone/etc is currently configured only to allow device to device communication, then that specific device could only be hacked when you are in mutual signal range.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 29 2011, 12:49 PM

But you do not need Mutual Signal Range between 2 independant devices to have mutual signal range through the Mesh Network (which it appears that you agree with, unless I am reading you wrong). Which is the point. As long as you can draw valid network connections between 2 points, you are considered to be in Mutual Signal Range. That is what the Mesh Network is for, after all.

Posted by: Sengir Jun 29 2011, 01:18 PM

Well, normally I would admit that I was not sure whether he meant to say that or was just using the term in another meaning than the RAW uses it for, because Yerameyahu is quite savvy with the rules and terminology...but remarks about somebody's general posting style are considered flaming, so of course I won't do that...


1337 h4XX: Root a device within that range and install a proxy on it

My personal handwavium for "no, you can't hack that thing from afar, because the GM said so" is that the device is configured not to accept incoming connections from the outside (ie. like something behind a NAT), which is uncomfortable and everything but still used sometimes. And no, NAT spoofing does not exist

@TJ: The point was terminology, RAW uses the term "mutual signal range" in a clear meaning and that is "two devices which can talk to each other directly". There's already enough inconsistent terminology in the books, no need to muddle it any further

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 29 2011, 01:28 PM

Gotcha... No worries...

Posted by: Ascalaphus Jun 29 2011, 01:34 PM

Yes, RAW defines Mutual Signal Range as a situation when the two devices can connect directly.

But! There is only one situation when you need MSR, and an indirect Matrix connection won't suffice: for the Detect Hidden Node action.

Everything else can be done as long as there exists at least an indirect path through the Matrix.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 29 2011, 01:36 PM

I can see what you're saying, but I do think everyone rightly assumes we're including matrix routing under the umbrella of mutual signal range.

Posted by: Ascalaphus Jun 29 2011, 01:44 PM

I just CTRL-F'ed through SR4A and Unwired about it. They really don't pay much attention to the whole subject; SR4A just says that everything is cool as long as there exists a two-way (in)direct communication path.

Posted by: suoq Jun 29 2011, 02:58 PM

Then everyone else's commlinks are only part of they automagic mesh if they're in Active mode. Suddenly in any area outside of corporate zones that
require active mode, the mesh rapidly goes away. In corporate zones that demand zero active modes, the mesh also goes away. Lots of meshless areas.

Posted by: hobgoblin Jun 29 2011, 03:26 PM

This depends on how many opt to go passive or hidden once out of those "zones".

Posted by: suoq Jun 29 2011, 04:40 PM

Why wouldn't they? That should be as sane as checking your ammo and safety. Am I missing something?

Posted by: HunterHerne Jun 29 2011, 05:11 PM

Corporate sponsored law requires certain information be transmitted at all times in many public areas. For that transmission, you need to run in active mode. THeMatrix benefits would be a nice side advantage, too.

Posted by: hobgoblin Jun 29 2011, 06:14 PM

Consider the number of people that seem to spill their innermost thoughts onto facebook and elsewhere and then go "oh crap" when someone actually points out openness.

There is likely a million and one little "helper" apps for comlinks that runners have no need for, but that wageslaves love. These all may well require active mode to work. And those that forgo them for security reasons may well be poked fun at as luddites and paranoid. And the "only criminals have something to hide" runs strong even today, would it be any different in SR? Especially only a few years after a massive terrorist plot?

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 29 2011, 06:31 PM

Agreed: normal people use Active Mode.

Posted by: suoq Jun 29 2011, 06:58 PM

Disagreed. Normal people don't leave the corporate safe zones. The same people who live off helper apps don't leave the society that the apps are written for. They stay in the enclaves and eat their SoyBoy burgers. I don't believe there's a lot of wageslaves in the Barrens. The wageslaves are where they can get a connection surrounded by their comfort zone.

Once you leave the wageslave comfort zone, you leave the wageslaves and all their nice little Matrix relays. Likewise, if you enter a corporate security zone, you may also lose connection because the rules there may be "No Active Connections for Security Reasons". The same place that doesn't want you cybered or awakened probably doesn't want you decked either. They're all security threats.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 29 2011, 07:09 PM

I don't see our statements as incompatible. If normal people don't leave the safe zones… they use Active Mode there.

That said, I still understand the basic 'normal' level of social life (bars, clubs, etc.) in 2070 to include Active Mode services (basically, Facebook), in the same way that AR is a fundamental part of life. Yes, there's a class that benefits less (even not at all), but even the poor have cell phones.

Posted by: Ryu Jun 29 2011, 07:27 PM

See Unwired pg. 53-55 on Data Exchange.

Posted by: Sengir Jun 29 2011, 07:58 PM

A few completely mundane applications: Your ID tag, meeting schedule, short profile so the people you ride the elevator with know who you are. Of course mommy corp will also use this to watch her precious little employees, for their own good. And not just commlinks, everything from light switches to ad boards (do you wish to learn more?) should also run in active mode.

What's also interesting, SR4A says that the routing functionality is separate from the other functions of the device - after all, "hidden" just means that you don't broadcast your presence, not that you maintain radio silence. So depending on whether you give precedence to the advanced book or the newer book, passive and hidden devices do contribute to the mesh.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 29 2011, 08:03 PM

Or, of course, the position that Passive meshes, and Hidden doesn't. Still, the fact that you can Detect Hidden Nodes *might* imply that they do (or, instead, that you just listen in for phantom traffic).

Posted by: Ascalaphus Jun 29 2011, 08:39 PM

The way Passive is described, it meshes; it merely ignores all the spambots trying to grab your attention.

Posted by: suoq Jun 29 2011, 11:05 PM

Actually it does more than that.


Active mode is the home of the clean commlink, the commlink associated with the fake ID you're using right now and without a bunch of software or data that you don't want people to know you're carrying. (If the crunch was there, it's where you would put the software you want people to think you are using. Imagine NOT having Angry Birds loaded on your phone. Those people running software that shows everyone's Angry Bird's score flying over their heads would stare at you like you're a freak or something.)

Passive mode keeps your data secure and that means maintaining your fake ID, appearing to be who you want to appear to be MUCH easier. BUT, your phone is still saying "Here I am!" and if you're not in a enclave, do you really want any device telling everyone within signal range that you're there?