Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Comlink modes and AR
Posted by: Redjack Jul 17 2011, 06:54 PM
you if specific pre-authorized nodes request access. This is the default mode for peripheral nodes and nexi—in the latter case access approval is required from a sysop or ensured by using an established account
Thoughts?
Posted by: HunterHerne Jul 17 2011, 06:58 PM
Thoughts?
Sounds right. But also keep in mind, many of those areas with lotsof AR spam require you to have your Commlink appearing active at all times. Passive mode is like a transmitting sleep mode. You are still on, and if you try to access things, it'll switch to active mode again. At least, that is my interpretation.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 17 2011, 07:03 PM
Depends on what you mean by AR. Incoming AR information from unknown, yes, would be unavailable. However, that's just crap that Facebook profiles and virtual storefronts. You still have the 'Google Goggles'-style AR (3rd party Matrix info on what you see), maps, TacNet, translation, weather/temp/compass, email/chat/video, etc. … All the useful stuff.
Posted by: Redjack Jul 17 2011, 07:12 PM
In passive mode, your access to AR is only from trusted nodes so the store fronts, city notices, restaurant menu, club AR, etc are all unavailable until.. All "anonymous" connections are rejected. Most of this AR is generated by just that, anonymous connections.
So you do not get "Google" in hidden and only if you are in mutual signal range of a provider tower or some other trusted relay when in passive mode.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 17 2011, 07:39 PM
Yes, I'm assuming you have access to an MSP 'main tower' or something (via some simple repeater trickery, etc.). I'm also assuming the menus and things are worthless. 
Posted by: Mardrax Jul 18 2011, 04:14 AM
Way I've always handled it:
When your node A is running passively in Seattle
And your brother's node Z is in Hong Kong
His call isn't coming from node B through X that serve as repeaters of his traffic, it's coming from him. And since he's trusted, you're getting his call.
If it's AR experience you're worried about, you can set the mall node(s) or the node of the bar you're in as a trusted source without a hitch. Yes, you're missing all the Facebook spamming, and NERPS ads, but that's what you're running passively for. Or just maybe, missing out on the NERPS ads is a sacrifice you have to make to lose all the rest too. 
Posted by: Redjack Jul 18 2011, 11:30 AM
Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 18 2011, 11:39 AM
When your node A is running passively in Seattle
And your brother's node Z is in Hong Kong
His call isn't coming from node B through X that serve as repeaters of his traffic, it's coming from him. And since he's trusted, you're getting his call.
Honestly that defies any kind of sense. If your in passive mode your not talking to the matrix how would the matrix know where to connect your call.
Posted by: Aerospider Jul 18 2011, 11:51 AM
That's not right. The call is originating from a permitted node (determined by access ID) and the nodes between are just forwarding the communication without interfering. Your link can tell the difference between a permitted call being relayed by a non-permitted node and a communication from the non-permitted node itself. Otherwise you're saying you would need to be in mutual signal range with that call from Hong Kong and for almost all privately-owned hardware that would never be the case.
Posted by: Thanee Jul 18 2011, 12:14 PM
If you have no Matrix connection, you are offline, not hidden.
Bye
Thanee
Posted by: Aerospider Jul 18 2011, 12:16 PM
In passive mode, your access to AR is only from trusted nodes so the store fronts, city notices, restaurant menu, club AR, etc are all unavailable until.. All "anonymous" connections are rejected. Most of this AR is generated by just that, anonymous connections.
So you do not get "Google" in hidden and only if you are in mutual signal range of a provider tower or some other trusted relay when in passive mode.
This is also not the case. Being in hidden mode makes your PAN invisible to other nodes, not the other way around. You are still aware of other nodes (so long as they themselves are not hidden) and can authorise them. So if you walk past a shop with some clever AR advertising and you're in hidden mode, you will not be disturbed or even alerted to the communication on offer, but there's nothing to stop you consciously checking that there is a broadcasting node and then authorising it if you're curious.
The only real difference between passive and hidden modes are that with the former other nodes (more pertinently, the users of other nodes) know your PAN is there and with the latter they don't. With either mode, if they aren't authorised they aren't getting through.
None of the modes affects your Matrix connection. You can still connect with any other node you fancy and your communication will be routed as and when necessary, though in doing so you do compromise the invisibility of hidden mode with respect to the node you're connecting to (but not to any routing nodes).
Posted by: hermit Jul 18 2011, 12:37 PM
That's like saying running AdBlock Plus and a decent popup blocker will greatly reduce your internet experience.
Passive allows you to run the AR applications you want, and only those. Active allows any RFID spam node to access your link and, well, spam you. Hidden is one more paranoid step and amounts to cookie-free, script blocking, porn surf mode internet. Still good for things but indeed a bit no-frills.
Routed signals have to work as if the trusted node sends them, in this scenario, for the entire WiFi Matrix to work.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 18 2011, 01:02 PM
Indeed, there really is no other option.
Posted by: Redjack Jul 18 2011, 01:34 PM
Routed signals have to work as if the trusted node sends them, in this scenario, for the entire WiFi Matrix to work.
Posted by: Mardrax Jul 18 2011, 01:42 PM
Of course, one may also spoof signals to fake coming from that brother in Hong Kong, but that's your problem.
How does the Matrix know where you are? It doesn't, but your MSP most likely will. They'll most likely be a trusted source, since the comcode system doesn't know where you are, otherwise, and you indeed won't be able to receive any calls. As it stands though, regularly checking in with your nearest MSP tower should be a standard procedure, just like it is for your cellphone.
Posted by: Redjack Jul 18 2011, 01:44 PM
Now continuing the hidden mode routing trickery conversation: If I set up, say a repeater drone and set it to spoof my ID and it was in active or passive (and connected to a trusted upstream either in active and on the mesh or a provider tower) and my com is hidden and in mutual signal range of said repeater then I have a matrix connection option.
Example: I am inside a corp facility and my repeater is outside and there is nothing blocking the wifi between the two, then I could feasibly get a matrix signal, send and receive calls, etc. I could see any of the AR inside the building though. In order to properly pull off this job, I need my hacker to put me on the corporate network with an active com that appears like it belongs. Now I can see and interact with the AR which will surely be present.
Posted by: Redjack Jul 18 2011, 01:46 PM
How does the Matrix know where you are? It doesn't, but your MSP most likely will. They'll most likely be a trusted source, since the comcode system doesn't know where you are, otherwise, and you indeed won't be able to receive any calls. As it stands though, regularly checking in with your nearest MSP tower should be a standard procedure, just like it is for your cellphone.
Posted by: Mardrax Jul 18 2011, 01:51 PM
Nonsense. A data signal gets a nice little identifier tagging it as comming from "Access ID X", which it keeps throughout its path to the receiver. As long as X is trusted, it doesn't matter wether or not Y and Z are middlemen passing the message on, since they don't alter the data.
If this wouldn't be the case, a) people couldn't Analyze your Access ID, and b) the entire concept of Access ID would be useless, as would the entire Matrix, as no one would ever be able to find your device on the 'way back'.
Posted by: Redjack Jul 18 2011, 02:01 PM
If this wouldn't be the case, a) people couldn't Analyze your Access ID, and b) the entire concept of Access ID would be useless, as would the entire Matrix, as no one would ever be able to find your device on the 'way back'.
I agree, what you propose is nonsense. If you don't trust a connection from a potential router, you are not going to accept a connection from it even it is says "but I've got a message from your brother in Hong Kong...."
Also, you can't trust that the data isn't getting altered. Encryption will *mostly* solve that, but in Shadowrun, encryption is broken to allow such things to occur (ergo: this is by design for game flavor)
In Hidden mode you're right, there is no route back, which is why mutual signal range is required.
In Passive mode, the route is dynamic taking the last hop through a trusted node.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 18 2011, 02:02 PM
While I think the 'dedicated' repeater method is perfectly viable, it's also my understanding that the automagic mesh routing 'just works'. It's totally illogical and insecure, but somehow it just works, safely, and without anyone thinking about it. Yay SR.
Posted by: Zaranthan Jul 18 2011, 02:07 PM
You got your reality in my fantasy!
You're confusing how networking works in Real Life with how it is specifically stated to work in the wireless Matrix. All matrix nodes act as ad-hoc routers, passing traffic along to everything in range, this is not the same thing as connecting to those nodes. In Reality, you are trusting the relay node not to muck with your packets. In the Matrix, the transmission protocol prevents relay nodes from mucking with the traffic going through them. It is not explained how this works, it is simply stated whole-cloth as RAW.
Posted by: Redjack Jul 18 2011, 02:08 PM
Posted by: Redjack Jul 18 2011, 02:16 PM
RAW actually supports the definitions I provided above.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 18 2011, 02:16 PM
*Shakes Head* Star Fleet Battles... Condolences.
That being said. I like Star Fleet Battles. Unfortunately, I have not been able to actually find a game for years upon years.
Posted by: Redjack Jul 18 2011, 02:21 PM
Posted by: Traul Jul 18 2011, 02:27 PM
First of all, it's your commlink, you do what you want with it. If you want to accept messages from trusted senders only, that's fine, and if you want to accept messages from a trusted route only, that's fine too. The only problem is what you decide to call "Passive mode". The difference is the same as between a private network and a VPN.
And I am not sure that you cannot route messages in Hidden mode: nothing says that a routing node must attach any kind of ID, and it's better for the network to allow anonymous routing.
Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 18 2011, 02:35 PM
I agree with Redjack's interprtation. Do I agree it overcomplicates things for most people? Certainly but if you ahve players interested in the matrix side, infosec, and opsec it can be a rewarding system to explore. The biggest thing is consistency. But if GM's just allow players to say "I turn myself to passive mode, durhur i'm unhackable." there's huge issues there.
On the whole I tend to presume that my PC's who are tech savy (that is have points in computers and cracking groups and applicable knowledge skills) are taking reasonable precautions and I make them aware of certain risks and downsides that their characters would be aware of but the player might not make the connection.
Posted by: Traul Jul 18 2011, 02:42 PM
Are you sure a route has to be generated? Since 99% of the antennas are omnidirectional, one can see the network using basic flooding instead. Then a message can be routed to a hidden node because the last repeater does not have to know it is in mutual signal range of the hidden receiver to send the message.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 18 2011, 02:49 PM
Yeah, I break out my books every once in a while to reminisce over the campaign I played for awhile. But have not played seriously in over a decade. I think that I played a total 2 pickup games in that time, and that was 4 years ago or so.
Posted by: Mardrax Jul 18 2011, 02:50 PM
When you go quoting RAW (Even though that bit you quoted would be considered fluff by most), and nitpicking like that, you might want to read up on Passive mode again as well:
You'll also note:
*shrug*
Do with it as you will, though.
Posted by: Redjack Jul 18 2011, 02:52 PM
Posted by: Redjack Jul 18 2011, 02:55 PM
Dude, did you even read what I wrote? I never inferred that a passive mode com could not be seen, just not accessed (by extension used as a router, etc) with explicit access being granted. Nothing I have alluded to contradicts the RAW for passive mode. In fact, you just reinforced my commentary above.
Posted by: Mardrax Jul 18 2011, 03:02 PM
A routing node is not accessing anything, it's merely passing on data it received from another node. Your 'link will be popping up a 'your brother in Hong Kong is asking for access.' Not 'the CCTV camera on that wall over there is asking for access.'
And indeed, a passive node can't be used as a router itself. (as noted on Unwired pg 54: "Due to the mesh-network nature of the Matrix, every wireless
node can function as a router and will do so if not in passive or hidden mode.")
Posted by: Traul Jul 18 2011, 03:03 PM
Flooding can send the ack message too. Or any combination of lightning-like transmission: flooding until a reliable route has been found, then direct transmission through this route. Current routing protocols are not necessarilly relevent to a P2P wireless network where 99% of the nodes can only broadcast at the hardware level.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 18 2011, 03:06 PM
See... I go with the idea that any comlink routes communications automatically if it is in Active or Passive Mode, because it is automatically detected and seen. Whether a Hidden Com automatically routes the Mesh is another discussion entirely. Routing and accessing are not the same thing. If you get too involved in the minutia of reality vs. game mechanics, evereything will just bog down.
EDIT: Mardrax just nullified my Pasive routing argument with a quote from Unwired... Oh well...
Posted by: Mardrax Jul 18 2011, 03:07 PM
Let me just add:
This makes the routing process invisible to the user, and allows the device’s node to connect to the Matrix even when it is operating in Hidden mode (p. 223).
Which hearkens back to:
And TJs post above.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 18 2011, 03:14 PM
I win! Though, again, there's nothing wrong with the player who wants to use their own repeaters. It's cool, RAW, and classy. While I wouldn't call Redjack's house rule an 'interpretation', it's not a bad one if that's what the players want.
Posted by: Traul Jul 18 2011, 03:20 PM
node can function as a router and will do so if not in passive or hidden mode.")
This is bullcrap. Not on the technical level, but on the consequences it should have on the setting. Where is the dystopia if the corps allow every John Doe to switch off his router at will? The matrix belongs to the corps, not its users. If this is the way the authors wanted it, they should have made Passive or Hidden mode illegal and only accessible through a proper Hacking program or hardware unlocking.
Posted by: Zaranthan Jul 18 2011, 03:23 PM
There are plenty of areas where not having your link in Active mode is a crime, and there are cameras on every light post and doorstep scanning the crowd for people without SIN AROs over their heads. The whole world doesn't work like that yet because it's a little expensive to enforce.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 18 2011, 03:29 PM
Traul, there's tons in the setting that is illogical, broken, etc. *shrug*
Posted by: Redjack Jul 18 2011, 03:29 PM
Though, again, there's nothing wrong with the player who wants to use their own repeaters. It's cool, RAW, and classy. While I wouldn't call Redjack's house rule an 'interpretation', it's not a bad one if that's what the players want.node can function as a router and will do so if not in passive or hidden mode.")
This is bullcrap. Not on the technical level, but on the consequences it should have on the setting. Where is the dystopia if the corps allow every John Doe to switch off his router at will? The matrix belongs to the corps, not its users. If this is the way the authors wanted it, they should have made Passive or Hidden mode illegal and only accessible through a proper Hacking program or hardware unlocking.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 18 2011, 03:34 PM
Those places are lame, of course. If you're walking around in a controlled TI'd area, you hardly care about AROs… because they're already tracking your exact location and you're about to be arrested.
It's simple: we know that Hidden mode works. We know that you can be on the mesh in Hidden mode. Otherwise, it wouldn't exist. If you want it grittier, require SR3-style repeater routes, but it's not RAW.
Posted by: Traul Jul 18 2011, 03:35 PM
Yes, but this is only for security reasons.
The quote in Unwired means that when you switch to Passive or Hidden, you damage the Matrix itself. So there is no reason for the corps to sell commlinks that can do it and to allow it in the commlink user licence agreement (and user licence agreements take a whole new meaning when the corp runs its own private police...)
Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 18 2011, 03:41 PM
Sure. Just like hot sim, they could add a trivial hacking test speed bump. Or not. Whatever.
The books really hammer on the idea of having one comm Active, and one Hidden. So the Hidden one can just leech off the Active, anyway.
Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 18 2011, 03:52 PM
It could be my imagination but I'm pretty sure there's some refrence to needing a stealth program to run in Hidden Mode, which is a restricted9(forbidden? I'm AFB) hacking program so.
Posted by: Aerospider Jul 18 2011, 04:57 PM
Your imagination it is - hidden mode is a hardware setting available to all devices on the machine level. Stealth is about making your digital activities 'blend in' with background processes, which is a purely software issue.
Posted by: Aerospider Jul 18 2011, 05:09 PM
The quote in Unwired means that when you switch to Passive or Hidden, you damage the Matrix itself. So there is no reason for the corps to sell commlinks that can do it and to allow it in the commlink user licence agreement (and user licence agreements take a whole new meaning when the corp runs its own private police...)
That's a fair assertion, but doesn't ring true for me. The corps really don't own the Matrix any more and it's a significant change to the ways of old. They theoretically could refuse to manufacture links without passive/hidden ability, but I can see legal and economic reasons precluding it. Even the rich and powerful need their privacy so it would only take one corp to offer it to force the others to follow suit. Also, bear in mind that zones set to enforce active mode do so for security and crime prevention, not to impose advertising. But then maybe that's just the spin ...
Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 18 2011, 05:34 PM
I'm pretty sure it's somewhere, perhaps it's in unwired, i'll go looking for it later. I do like it better this way, makes a certain amount of sense.
Posted by: Mardrax Jul 18 2011, 08:38 PM
Oh sorry,
Seems like I didn't forget, but the forum is messing up with my quoting. 0_o Anyway, reference added for your convenience.
Posted by: Redjack Jul 18 2011, 08:55 PM
Seems like I didn't forget, but the forum is messing up with my quoting. 0_o Anyway, reference added for your convenience.
Thanks! I was looking on 223. I now see the 223 reference was part of the quote.
I like the rule fix in Unwired, though I can understand how this makes for a simpler game.
Posted by: suoq Jul 19 2011, 12:34 AM
SR4A
Regardless of your particular vision of the Shadowrun dystopia, it's pretty clear that there are zones and establishments where hidden is the norm.
-------------------------------
I can't find anywhere where it says you need Stealth to go hidden (and a few places that imply that you don't). That being said, Stealth influences both Matrix Perception tests (p. 228) and Trace User attempts (p. 232) making it a good thing to have running constantly. Note that it doesn't affect "Find Hidden Node" tests which are seriously overpowered do to power creep. Since there appears to be no defense against detect hidden node, all the power creep is on the side of the hunter. Adding Stealth to the threshold for Detect Hidden seems like a reasonable house rule to me.
Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 19 2011, 01:00 AM
In a situation where you more or less throw your data packets into the Matrix and trust that the receiving party will eventually get it, wouldn't it be pointless to have one of the routing nodes alter the packets in an attempt to deceive the receiver?
All it would take is a second confirmation packet, traveling along a different path through the Matrix, for the receiver to realize that something is wrong. These kind of networks often use redundancy and confirmation protocols to make sure the data isn't corrupted by accident on the way to their destination, this should also apply to deliberate attempts to interfere with the data.
In order to pull it off, you'd have to intercept ALL the packets sent, no matter what route they are taking.
There's that old quote, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." Would seem to tangentially apply here.
-k
Posted by: Traul Jul 19 2011, 01:01 AM
I do not question that. I question the corps allowing it to happen when it means they have to maintain more towers to compensate for the missing routers, they do it for free and the people who benefit from it do not even watch the ads.
Also note that Hidden would be the norm in shadow establishments even if it was illegal.
Posted by: suoq Jul 19 2011, 01:16 AM
----------------------
The matrix uses packets?
Posted by: Traul Jul 19 2011, 01:27 AM
They sell commlinks equiped with the option to turn Passive or Hidden.
There are no rules for loss of connectivity due to everyone switching to Hidden mode. So something has to keep the matrix working when the P2P system is broken. Who pays for the infrastructure?
Another thing: Passive is the default mode for peripherals and nexi. So every toaster is connected to the matrix, but routing only relies on commlinks?
Yes, the matrix uses packets:
Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 19 2011, 01:35 AM
I assume that the economics of maintaining towers, selling MSP services, and selling ads works out. It's not so crazy for the corps to pay for the infrastructure and allow some leechers, in order to reap the profits off those who do buys MSP services and/or see ads, or simply attract people to locations to buy things, and so on. See also: free wi-fi, Google, etc.
Posted by: Traul Jul 19 2011, 01:50 AM
But those who do buy MSP services and see ads do not need the infrastructure since the P2P matrix works fine for them. The infrastructure is installed only for the leechers.
Posted by: Mardrax Jul 19 2011, 01:55 AM
Just because Passive mode it's an option doesn't mean everyone and their mom is doing it. In fact, since 75% of everyone and their mom doesn't know that much about how devices work, it's unlikely they ever switch modes at all. And then there's the fact it's unlikely that John Q Wageslave ever leaves areas that don't rely heavily on AR for all kinds of aids -which would make it a pain to manually have to set the node of every single store you ever visit as trusted- or just plain obligate Active mode.
In fact, I wouldn't even find it that unlikely for MSPs to reward the general populace for watching ads and buying associated products, giving them a discount on subscription, complimentary packs of NERPS, etc.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 19 2011, 02:03 AM
That doesn't make sense, Traul. Everyone uses the big towers, and the mesh, all the time.
Posted by: Traul Jul 19 2011, 02:20 AM
I agree with that, but it is not what is written in Unwired:
People can choose not to use the mesh. In seedy bars, there is no mesh at all.
The next sentence in the same paragraph contradicts itself and the core book:
So perpiherals and nexi route... but they don't because they are in Passive mode and Passive nodes don't route.
It seems that this whole paragraph is just bad retconning.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 19 2011, 02:27 AM
People can choose not to *contribute to* the mesh. That's not the same as 'use'. Everyone uses it.
Posted by: Redjack Jul 19 2011, 02:32 AM
- MSP's don't want you to use the mesh. They want you to pay service fees to them to use their towers.
- Comlink manufacturers are tired of being restricted by the MSP's so they build mesh network support into their comlinks. It is an instant hit with a significant percentage of the population and the MSP's have to suck it up and live with it.
- MSP's are forced to adapt their business model, like it or not.
- Hidden mode is created to serve much the same function as airplane mode today. 60 years of advancement have attached some social etiquette to it.
Something like this seems very plausible to me...
Posted by: Mardrax Jul 19 2011, 12:18 PM
Seedy bars will often have at least a single node of their own, which connects to the mesh with a few of the CCTV cameras around, or a GridGuide traffic light.
That peripherals are set to Passive by default doesn't mean that can't be changed, and when it is, they still route.
Higher Signal devices create less nodes in a path from A to B, making sure the signal gets to B as fast as possible. The towers are used by everyone. Leechers, however, woud have no problem finding Active nodes to route through elsewhere. Public areas outside barrens should be brimming with them.
Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 19 2011, 01:16 PM
- Comlink manufacturers are tired of being restricted by the MSP's so they build mesh network support into their comlinks. It is an instant hit with a significant percentage of the population and the MSP's have to suck it up and live with it.
My big issue with scenario is in the shadowrun megacorporate dystopia these two entities are likely one and the same.
Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 19 2011, 01:20 PM
Eh, IBM never really wanted to be in the Personal Computer business, but they ran a PC division at a loss for decades.
Having mesh support is probably one of those features that is just expected by the consumers, and as such the manufacturers probably can't afford to drop it. Their competitors would jump all over it if they did, advertising that THEIR products have something that the mesh-less product does not.
-k
Posted by: Redjack Jul 19 2011, 02:21 PM
Posted by: Traul Jul 19 2011, 02:58 PM
Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 19 2011, 03:12 PM
This is not bagging on SR4/A, CGL Fanpro etc.
Just like the magic system needs a written down and explained system of how stuff works so does the tech/matrix system. it doesn't have to be accurate it doesn't have to be realistic, it just has to be consistant. Whenever SR5 comes around I would really like to see a top to bottom look at how the matrix works in general terms so stuff like this can be sorted out. Ideally they get a group of smart/lore/matrix savy people together (this excludes me) and they start almost from scratch. You want some people who know some IT theory but arn't going to feel bound by it.
For the record any modern day or near future RPG seems to have this problem. We had an accurate hacking exploration in Gurps, it got them raided by the FBI and honestly it wasn't very fun from a game play standpoint.
/sandbox off.
Addemdum: I think the SR4 matrix is pretty good, definitely best hacking system out there, it just needs an extra 10 percent to both streamline and make it work smoother.
Posted by: suoq Jul 19 2011, 03:16 PM
I'm not sure this is true.
I believe the corps desire the existence of the matrix.
I believe the corps understand that the ability to control the matrix includes the ability to destroy the matrix.
I believe the corps desire the non-destruction of the matrix by any means necessary.
To this end designing a matrix that can be controlled, in a world of sprites, technomancers, and things yet to be understood, is, in my opinion, NOT a good idea, and the ability to create ad-hoc networks, disconnect whole sections or disconnect from whole sections, and remain operational are all desired in support of those goals.
The issue I have with the whole "The corps control everything" meme is that the history is the history of the government and then the corps failing to control. Control, in fact, may take second place to a higher goal, that of stability, without which, control is fleeting.
---------------------------------
Lurker: Personally, I like Serbitar’s guide to the matrix v1.1. It's always appeared to be internally consistent, though I may have missed something.
Posted by: Traul Jul 19 2011, 03:25 PM
I believe the corps understand that the ability to control the matrix includes the ability to destroy the matrix.
I believe the corps desire the non-destruction of the matrix by any means necessary.
I agree with that. This is the alternative explanation to Redjack's history: after the Crash 2.0, the corps wanted to avoid a Crash 3.0 so they settled for the most resilient structure possible: the mesh. From this point of view, excluding peripherals from the mesh structure makes no sense: most of them have fixed locations and 24 hour uptime, so they form a much more reliable infrastructure than individual commlinks. Users switching their router off at will also weakens the mesh, so the corps cannot allow it.
Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 19 2011, 03:28 PM
Well again we go to a level of detail item. Your average toaster is likely set active all the time by default, it doesn't hurt it in 99% of situations to recieve and pass on traffic so it stays like that way. The passive users of the matrix likely won't do much damage in the long run especially if there's an incentive to stay active (ease of use,.
Posted by: Traul Jul 19 2011, 03:32 PM
That's not what is written in the core book: Passive is the default mode for peripherals.
Posted by: Mardrax Jul 19 2011, 05:18 PM
Home nodes, however, should easily outclass the toaster in pretty much everything, including Signal, so the toaster can sit back and be a toaster, while the home node handles the routing well enough for the neighbour to pick up on it.
Devices are too ubiquitous for the thousands of toasters and soycaf makers and fridges to matter at all with their Signal 1. So they're turned Passive by default to prevent excessive snowballing of data.
Posted by: Blitz66 Jul 19 2011, 05:41 PM
Devices are too ubiquitous for the thousands of toasters and soycaf makers and fridges to matter at all with their Signal 1. So they're turned Passive by default to prevent excessive snowballing of data.
I like this. Elegant. Stationary nodes in homes and businesses handle the bulk of all routing, because they're constant. PANs and vehicles and the like would have very low priority in routing, because by design they can't be expected to be in the same place for long. However, lacking other options, anything in Active mode will do the job. It's just not a big deal when somebody goes Hidden, because their commlink is unlikely to be a central fixture in local Matrix traffic.
Posted by: suoq Jul 19 2011, 08:21 PM
The ability to disconnect from the mesh is not a weakness of the infrastructure, it's a strength.
True Story:
In 1993, there was a debate on the internet about anon.penet.fi (an early anonymizer). One of the people interested in shutting it down was Dick Dephew, an Usenet administrator. Dick wrote a program that would, every time it encountered a message from anon.penet.fi , send a forged delete message, thereby effectively removing anon.penet.fi from the net. The debate continued and at the last minute Dick semi-relented and changed the code to append the message instead of deleting it. He then went to bed.
I still remember watching the net die that night.
Here's the problem. When the software forged the append and sent it out, it then detected a new message (the same one IT forged) and appended it again, and again, and again. It swamped usenet as fast as it could and Dick's machine was one of the central hubs. Everything began to get buried under the load and the only way to save it was to shut it down and then reconnect to trusted servers (i.e. everyone else who had also already shut down). Attempts to get ahold of Dick that night failed and he had to be routed around, despite his machines being central to Usenet at the time.
The ability to turn a server or router to passive with only specific routing is invaluable because it provides a means of quarantining a threat. Active mode is great WHEN the matrix is healthy and all channels are "trusted", but passive mode and being able to pick and choose trusted servers and routers allow a matrix to exist around a threat. In order to be part of the mesh at all times, the commlinks need to have the same core mesh defenses as the rest of the infrastructure. The other alternative is to lose all commlinks when the infrastructure is threatened. Therefore commlinks either need to have passive and hidden modes or in case of threat, they get turned completely off.
Posted by: Traul Jul 19 2011, 11:08 PM
I can see your point, but if such a functionality is required:
1) there is no reason to link it with modes. Active, Passive and Hidden are privacy settings. What happens in case of network threat in a high-security area? You switch to Passive and get arrested for not broadcasting your SIN?
2) it has to be automated. You are talking about a handful of geeks duct-taping the net by hand in heroic times. The Matrix is a world-wide network connecting billions of users. It might be a bit optimistic to trust the users to detect when something is going wrong and decide to switch to Passive. Routers themselves would be concerned too, and they do not have a user to tell them to switch modes.
3) it has to be dynamic. If your example was transposed into the Matrix, switching to Passive would not have helped at all because the failure came from one of the trusted nodes, so it would have been in all the white lists. The key was to identify the threat and remove it from the routing tables. The typical Matrix user would just have been helpless.
4) such network-wide threats do not exist per RAW. There are a lot of possible attacks on nodes but no way to mess with the mesh itself, apart from area jamming. Nodes can be taken down, the mesh cannot. MSPs do provide access points, but those have no effect in game: everyone enjoys the same matrix connectivity whether they have an MSP or not (in urban areas at least). If the mesh structure was less dense with dedicated routers, then it should be possible to isolate any area by attacking its routers. Botnets provide the power to attack multiple targets at once.
Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 20 2011, 02:34 AM
I think a more productive item at this point would be splitting a thread on what service to MSP's actually provide.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 20 2011, 02:42 AM
Why? It's in the book. They provide email addresses, cloud storage, cruddy programs. The're Google.
Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 20 2011, 02:57 AM
I guess because even though I know it's not realistic a part of my mind just rebels at the thought of how the SR4 matrix system works without making runners (and everyoen else) basicly traceable all the time. Just the simple act of making sure you can receive phone calls would make you trace bait.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 20 2011, 03:00 AM
That's in the books, too. You don't need an MSP at all, nor the convenient commcodes they do provide. Also, there are shadow MSPs and disposable commcodes.
Posted by: Redjack Jul 20 2011, 03:30 AM
Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 20 2011, 03:37 AM
And that's the fun of Shadowrun.
Posted by: Traul Jul 20 2011, 10:22 AM
Maybe there are no routing tables and routes are always computed on the fly? It could make sense: given the dynamic structure of the mesh, routes should not last long, so better not bother until you actually need them. So no one makes sure that you can receive calls until someone tries to call you. But that does not change much: someone who wants to track you just has to send you a message and follow the route it takes.
Posted by: suoq Jul 20 2011, 12:35 PM
While I see runners as being traceable, I see the issue being, "Which one of the billions(?) of commlinks on the mesh do we trace?".
Personal setup I'm sure the GM will grill me on sometime in the home campaign:
Mr. Johnson gets the disposable commlink if he wants to leave messages. That commlink is left off except when I want to check messages. When the job is done, the commlink gets burned. Yes, it's traceable, but not easily and only during the job and only if Mr. Johnson says he needs a way to contact us in-mission.
Fake ID commlink. The commlink that says, "Yes, I'm Emmanuel Goldstein". Active in active areas, passive in passive areas unless I'm building more fake id data, off on a run, nothing unusual except a decent firewall. Yes, it's traceable, but if they're trying to trace Emmanuel Goldstein, I've already screwed up horribly.
The Job Commlink. The one running the tacsoft, the hacker software, etc. Hidden constantly. The bad news is that there's this expectation that fixers can call me 24/7 and they might as well use this phone since it's the one my PAN is on. If this is the one being traced then I've screwed up on-the-job.
Assumptions:
1) This isn't Missions where Mr Johnson and his daughter and the people you're running away from all get your commlink number by fiat.
2) There's a messaging service. If Mr. Johnson needs to be able to contact me live 24/7 we'll as a group talk about opsec and comfort levels and how much we trust Mr. Johnson.
3) The firewall on the Job Commlink is already doing stuff to make this commlink as untraceable as possible and swapping out hardware and giving fixers a new number every week isn't worth it. If I should have a fixer only commlink, I'm cool with that and can make the investment. Every way I work it, the fixer's need to contact my job persona seems to be the hole in the defense.
Posted by: Redjack Jul 20 2011, 12:52 PM
The firewall is doing stuff to protect the com, not make it un-traceable.
That said, I think this goes to the conversation about what does an MSP do for you (re:messaging service)? MSPs, legit or shadow, can offer drop boxes for messages, etc. From your single com, you have accounts with a dozen MSPs, each one with a separate *identity*. You fixer contacts you via your account with MSP #1, Mom & family via MSP#2, your street contact via MSP#3, etc.
I agree that only in the most extreme circumstances is someone going to try to track you down to your com via your connections to the matrix and even then 99.9999% will simply not be able to do it. As a counter to that, I see another service provided by shadow MSPs is to proxy your calls so that in the example above, if your fixed had the connections and inclination to burn you, his trace leads to a node in Paris, France despite the fact you are sitting 3 blocks down the street from him.
Posted by: Mardrax Jul 20 2011, 01:08 PM
Proxy services are a separate service from MSPs, as detailed in Unwired.
Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 20 2011, 01:22 PM
I think the one thing people are failing to connect on here is in this setting hacking is explicitly possible. If i get someones comcode I just start hacking the MSP's. How hard that is likely depends on your GM but I have a really hard time envisioning most individual MSP nodes higher then a 6, eight at the highest so it's just a matter of time and trouble to breach a runners MSP network once you get their comcode
Personally because as a player I'm very interested in Hackers/technos in games information security starts to come up a lot. Now there are certain playability changes that needs to be made, the threshold 15 to find all hidden nodes kinda needs to be modified, but other then that I think there is a fun aspect of the game to explore there.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Jul 20 2011, 01:43 PM
But, again, commcodes aren't a requirement. That's just another part of the fun (really!) quagmire of the matrix.
Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 20 2011, 01:48 PM
True, the same could be said for access ID, if someone pulls the access ID on your device while your sitting at a cafe they can essentially track you physically until you change ID's.
Posted by: Redjack Jul 20 2011, 01:52 PM
Posted by: Traul Jul 20 2011, 01:56 PM
Assuming you run the kind of setup suoq described, if they got your comcode, then they got your fixer. Hacking the MSP might then not be easier than just setting a trap appointment in the meat or in the matrix.
Posted by: Mardrax Jul 20 2011, 02:56 PM
I'd think them getting your primary comcode would lead to more anguish than being physically trackable. I'd start worrying about how much of your conversations, or at least call history, they've logged. Not to mention e-mail and whatnot.
Posted by: Redjack Jul 20 2011, 03:03 PM
Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 20 2011, 03:49 PM
I'm trying to nudge my team towards the line of thought that the hackers role in protecting the teams data is just as important (or at least as worthy of a little forethought) as the sam's and the mages in protecting their meat and their spirit. I'm going to houserule a few things to make it easier but i think it will improve the game. Should in theory make the ahcker more able to umbrella protect a team slaved up to him/her.
Posted by: Redjack Jul 20 2011, 04:22 PM
The hacker realized that he fell down on the job and the team (playfully) let him know it.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 20 2011, 06:04 PM
Never forget that the Threshold STARTS at 15, it doesn't end there.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)