I'm not really sure what you're saying. Are you trying to argue that it's not RAW to have nodes connected to each other in such a way that you have to connect to one in order to get to the other? What, exactly, is a "daisy chain", and why do you have a problem with it?

A daisy chain is a series of electronic devices where every single device is needed in order for any to operate. Basically it is what's called a series. A->B->C->D Cut out any one and the system fails.

As to how to make a daisy chain in SR, all you have to do is use accounts. Start with the Outer Gate node which can accept any Access ID. This is your point A. Next is the first chain node, B. It will only accept two Access IDs for anything, namely the IDs of A and C, and it has no signal rating because it is completely wireless. This means that no communication can officially pass through B unless it comes from either A or C. This allows commands and communications to pass through the node, from one to another, but never users. It is basically a wall in the Matrix separating one isolated node or cluster of nodes from the rest of the Matrix/network. So, anyone without physical access to the protected node/cluster can not get through without either knowing exactly which access ID to spoof, which can't be sniffed without a data trail, or through repeated exploits.

Everyone seems to forget no matter how buff the program. The program rating is limited to system and response. rating 12 programs have a huge problem to over come before you can even use them.

I find it intensly amusing that all the people defending the SR4 rules for the matrix are doing so by using the very same tricks and tactics that people complained about in previous editions of SR and that SR4 was supposed to have done away with. Matrix Dungeons for everyone!

kjones:

I'm arguing that RAW has no rules that support the setup. There are no limits imposed to what nodes you can perform a Log On action for ('cept the obvious case where you don't know that the node exists).



The rules state absolutely no limitations. If you know of a node (and I mean know, not "describe some general characteristics") then you can perform a Log On action, and enter the node. Any node, regardless of its topographical surroundings. There are exceptions stated in various places, like the Encryption rules, and the Slaving rules, but so far as I can tell, there are no rules that allow you to make Daisy Chains (that work) save the use of Anonymising Proxies.

As for the accusation that I have a problem with Daisy Chain? Well, yes, I do have a problem with. I stated what my problem with it was in the post prior to this one. To reiterate: Rolling extra dice for no reason is boring, and makes the game bad. Daisy Chains mean extra dice rolling for no reason. Therefore, Daisy Chains suck monkey balls.

Normally, however, the belief that your opponent has a personal problem with something they argue against is a pointless line of argument. If you want me to accept some kind of comment on my motivations for doing what I do, you must still demonstrate that I am wrong. Otherwise I will reject your psychological introspections as a bunch of pointless fluff intended to cover for the fact that you have nothing to contribute.


Knight11:

Quote them, please. I must be blind, because I can't find them.


Triggvi:





Sithney:


First, I shall demonstrate how your Daisy Chain does not work.



Nexus A which only permits the AIDs of nexus B and nexus C cannot perform the role of a Daisy Chain because the AID of the originating node is always used in your Persona, therefore only the Personas from the nodes up and down the chain can even access a node in the middle, making it impossible to use the Daisy Chain to secure Matrix Access. If we could give a Persona another AID, then we resurrect Agent Smith. If we can use one of the Personas from another node, we'd resurrect Agent Smith. If you can ever have an AID on a Persona you are using to take actions in the Matrix which is not the AID that you get from the hardware you are actually physically using, then Agent Smith rapes your mother.


Now, I'll demonstrate why your Daisy Chain does not matter to a Hacker.





An Account will permit you access to a Passive mode Nexus or Peripheral. Hacking in gives you an Account. Ergo, hacking in will permit you access to a Passive mode Nexus or Peripheral.

Heath, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're asserting that nodes can forward traffic without giving you any access to that node - which makes sense, because this is how the Matrix works. (Mesh network.) Are you saying, then, that any node connected to the Matrix at large (and therefore any node connected to a node connected to the matrix, or any node connected...) can just be accessed directly through the matrix?

Even if that is RAW, it's incredibly silly. Furthermore, take a look at the example security setups in Unwired, p. 77. The higher-security nodes all have some kind of tiered access, so you can't just directly access the innermost nodes with a "log on" action - how does that work, then? If I'm understanding it correctly, that's the entire principle behind a "gateway", although I'm not sure if that's an actual rules term, or merely a descriptive one.

Personally, regardless of the rules, I'd rather have my Matrix look like the one in the sample setups in Unwired than have every node accessible from everywhere.

Were you quoting this to me? I totally agree with you ... You cannot detect a Harwired System via Wireless Devices, as Hidden Mode is only for Wireless Communications... That is about as abvious as the nose on my face...

Keep the Faith

true, tho i suspect the people that defend SR4, also defended earlier (at least post VR2.0/SR3) rules.

most of the big changes between SR3 and SR4 are:

- no more tracking storage and active memory. instead you can carry as much data and programs as you like, and track how many programs you run vs system.

- massively reducing the number of special stats to know and track. a SR3 deck had 7 stats for a deck, and maybe 5 for a host. SR4 have 4, and they are the same for both parties. One can even fold them into a single number if one want ease of use.

- AR. now hackers have a option when the shit hits the fan, rather then basically sitting in a corner wired to a wall socket (matrix held some rules on wireless connections, but that didnt eliminate the VR only issue).

- making drone rigging and hacking one system. Sure, it creates some potential headaches, but it also streamlines the number of systems one need to know. With SR3, riggers had their wholly own system of signal warfare (3-4 damage tracks, anyone?) and a building rigging system that deckers could barely access via emulator hardware (and was badly under-equipped even then).

Thing is that during a run in SR4, the hacker can do more then he could in SR3. he can get into the security system and attempt to misdirect or frustrate security without having to get into a gun battle, and risk having HTR teams come crashing in the windows. Try that in SR3 and you need to be a rigger, not a decker.

Not really...

Either create a System/Response 12 System OR
Create a Rating 12 Program with a Rating 6 Optimization

Now, Both of these are doable by Raw standards, if a little bit on the high powered side... The real challenge is having your GM allow that in his game...

Keep the Faith

i can see situations where you have to hack node A in order to turn on node B (which is otherwise off with no power) in order to access node C through node B. node B is a simple dedicated box to route traffic with a good firewall, an alarm, and nothing else. when the node B turns on for any reason, the defense hackers receive a notification at once. their first response to an alarm may be to physically unplug node B.

this would provide matrix-accessible data at a higher level of security, and require a daisy-chain that cannot be bypassed. A remains available to the public at all times, while C is primarily internal with the occasional outside line.

Damned Double Post... Sorry

The problem with your analysis, Heath, is that if you can ONLY access Node A (because you have no way of actually scanning for a node that isn't wireless and some hardware is just not physically there due to being Hardwired) you MUST hack Node A to gain Entrance to the system... Now when Node A connects to another Node (Call if B), you cannot transfer from Node to Node without hacking the next Node in Line... and so on down the Line...

So... Example

Node A: Camera... Camera can either be Wired or Wireless, Method controls how you have to gain access...
Node B: Wired Camera Sub-Node (Contains connections to Node A1 through A9, with Connection to Visual Security Sub-Node, Call it C)
Node C: Visual Security Sub-Node... It ultimately connects to a Main Security Node, which may or may not contain Branches to other Main Nodes, dependant upon how the System is configured...

As you can see... it is a "String of Nodes" that logically connect to eash other... the fact that you MUST hack each node in series to gain access to a deeper Node is already established by RAW, and I am assuming that you agree with that in Principle at least... Now, call that "String" what you will (Some call it a Daisy Chain)... Now, each of those Nodes can have IC and Protective Measures installed to make the Hack more difficult... and the more Secure the Facility you are trying to penetrate, the more countermeasures there will be... Again, I do not think that you would Argue this point... (Though I think I would need to clarify here taht if your node is a Clustered set of devices, you would have access to all of the Devices in the Node so Clustered once you hacked the Node Proper... One of the reason that I do not use clustered nodes that often)

Now, Interestingly, if you were to gain the access permissions of a person on the System that had access, you would not need to hack and you would have free reign of the system, within your access rights of course.

That is why there are always at least a minimum of 2 ways to gain access... By Directly Hacking the System, or by Socially Engineering the Human Element...Hopefully, we can agree on these points... If so, I cannot see your argument at all, and you will need to do a better job of explaining it...

As far as I can tell, eveything I have demonstrated above is per the Books...

SO... What are you in actual disagreement with here? The fact that a Hacker will need to make more than a few rolls to gain access to a system? This is RAW... and This is exactly how we do it in our game, and it has yet to really slow down anything at all... Hackers work in the same timespace as the Street Samurai, and we pursue our targets simultaneously, via the Combat Turn System... How does this not work in your games? I am honestly confused at your opposition here...

Keep the Faith

kjones:


From my reading of the rules, I have the strongest confidence in the conclusion you derived from what I wrote. Unless someone can point me to information that suggests that my conclusion is wrong I am not going to act as if the rules say something else.


Tymaeus:


In order for the camera output from node A to be available to node C, or node D, it must be subscribed by the node that is intended to use it. I cannot remember offhand any capacity to borrow the subscriptions of a node you are subscribed to.



You can bypass the Daisy Chain by Tracing from the Camera node. Remember that you can use Log On for any node you know exists. There is no "trawl around the wired network dungeon" functionality in the rules (so far as I know, contingent on never finding a rule which requires or describes it).

The rules do govern how it is that you can find node X, but not what you have to hack in order to be able to hack it. You can always Hack node X if you know it exists (i.e. have its AID). If you beat up a Security Spider and steal his commlink, which has a "portal" to the Wired Hidden Security node, you'd not have to hack anything to get to the node so long as I can connect to its network.

A Daisy Chain that can have links ignored by a Hacker is not a Daisy Chain. The Log On action ensures that you cannot implement a Daisy Chain whilst still having access to the outside world, except by use of chained Proxies (which I mentioned in the first post I made in this topic).


Oh, and you can never detect Nodes B, C, or D except by using the Trace User action. That is why I mentioned it in this thread about security. There is actually no way under the rules to detect them. It is not "you can't detect them because you can't make a connection to them". It is "you can never, under any circumstances, detect them because the Detect Hidden Node action requires you be in mutual Signal range of them, which is impossible because they have no Signal."

I still don't understand how you miss the fact that an absolute requirement to detect a Hidden node is that it have a Signal range. Having a wired connection does not give the nodes connected to it a Signal range. They cannot be detected, ever, if they are in Hidden mode.

if one read unwired, it says that only nodes in active mode will unconditionally forward traffic.

specifically its page 54, routing.

SR4 Corebook, p 223, black side box entitled Network Security
(I dont have a .pdf of the Core, so I am handtyping from the hardcopy. Forgive typos)

"Though wireless networks are easier, they are also a security vulnerbility. While its true most megacorps prefer to avoid cable spaghetti, they do use "cold storage" wired systems in order to isolate them from outside wireless networks and intrusion. In order to access such networks, a hacker needs to gain access to a physucal jackpoint or terminal. <snip>
Not all networks are configured as mesh networks- many corporate systems, in fact, retain a traditional tiered network structure. In a tiered structure, some systems can only be accessed through another system first, with the most secure systems hiding behind several layers of security.<snip>"

You'd really hate the stuff that followed.... vanishing, teleporting, secret trap-door, one way access nodes... its almost like a... a... matrix dungeon. *shiver*

I just pointed you to information that suggests that your conclusion is wrong! See the example setups on p. 77 of Unwired - these have a tiered security model.

Also, what everyone else said.

First: You have apparently missed my point... I have always stated that YOU COULD NOT DETECT NODES B, C, or D because they are hardwired and HAVE NO SIGNAL... we are in complete agreement about that point... Scan REQUIRES a Signal to do anything AT ALL... No Argument...

Secondly: Each node can have a number of Subscriptions equal to twice their System... so Node A is subscribed to Node B (as are several Other Nodes A1-whatever)... Nodeb has a single subscription BACK to Node C (as do Several Other Nodes B1-whatever)... I have never stated that Node C directly subscribed to Node A as that would circumvent an important security protocol (that of a layered System, which is described in Unwired and is the "Missing Information" that you are apparently not noticing... It is a Canon reference to a style of System Security, Which I use religiously, as a Character, even on my own PAN .). Since you can have incremented subscruiptions, this creates a "Chain" of Nodes That MUST be hacked in sequence in order to progress... Since you cannot wirelessly just move to Node C, you must move through the Hardwired security setup... This creates a wonderful chokepoint system that the Hacker must maneuver through if he wants to do anything...

Thirdly: The Trace USER Matrix Action allows you to determine what node originates the Program, and what the User Access ID is... You cannot trace Hardware (as a Camera is)... therefore you cannot just bypass the security measures that are in place... According to the Rules... Page 232 of SR4A... You can only trace ICONS... a Piece of Hardware is not an ICON... In my exapmle... the Camera is running its own security programs (it can do so because it is a Node), thus, you cannot trace a program back any further than the Camera, which is where you are starting the hack at... so in this regard, Trace is entirely useless... as for the next node in the line... you cannot trace it, because you have no access to it, that is what the Exploit Program and Hacking is for... you have to crack the new node... pretty simple..


As for tracking the Other end of the Subscription, it only provides the location and User Access ID... except that the Node has NO User ID... it is a NODE, not an ICON... so again, The Trace User Matrix Action is pretty useless against Hardware...

Even the Log On Matrix Action would REQUIRE you to deal with the requisite security procedures, as indicated in the Action described on Page 231. and you can really only Log On to a system to which you have Access, otherwise you would have to hack it...

Now, let us look at the actual program...

It is used to analyze a user's connection and follow the datatrail back to the originating Node... What allows the program to work is that is is using the mesh web to follow the signal... and this is a very important piece of information... it never accesses another node, as it is using the communications path that is created using the mesh... as a user, you do not connect to every node that you pass through, the signal is just bounced from device to device... you have never entered the Node you are using to bounce... On a Secured system, this is not the case... you MUST pass through each and every node that is along the path, and deal with each and every node's security (assumming that you are not using a legitimate account, which bypasses this with the account's permissions). At that point, If a trace User Action enters a Node, it must do so with an exploit... if the Traking Icon (It is an IC/Agent or User right?) does not have an Exploit program available, the Trace User Matrix Action stops right there... Ironically, many people use Proxy Servers for just this very purpose, though a Node does not have to be a Proxy server to stop the Trace (IE... Proxy Servers have additional Game Mechanics)... once you have traced to a node which requires hacking (assuming that the Trace cannot Exploit its way pas the Node Gateway), that is the access point that is reported back to the User/IC/Agent that initiated the Trace.


Now, all that being said... You are correct that if you were able to obtain the Spider's Hardware (his Comlink or Data Terminal), then you would have little reason to Hack, as his system interfaces the system with no trouble... however, you may still need to Hack if you ever try to go somewhere he was not allowed to go... not all Security Spiders have access to all parts of the System after all...

Security in Depth is going to be the watchword for any Megacorporate entity... whether they are Clas A, AA, or AAA.... Ignoring that partcular paradigm will cause potentially grave exposure to their system, and that is not going to be allowed... That being said, some systems will be more secure than other systems... You may only have a layer or two on a minimal system that is intended for public consumption... however, the ultra-secure Zero AOne Research Facility, buried underground, and protected by Systems that dispense Nerve agent at teh first sign of penetration, and have absolutely no external connection to the Matrix... well these are going to contain as many layers as they think is necessary to keep out the riff-raff, and yet still allow those researchers to do their job... obviously, the first layer of defense is that you will have to crash their party just to have a chance at their network... it only gets harder from there though...

I do Understand now where you come from (for the most part), but am unsure why you still deny the use of Layered defenses on a System, since it talks about such things in the Unwired Core Matrix Rulebook (Please see the Section titled "System Topology, and System Design" pages 72-76). this should clear up a few points I would imagine... Also, there are several exapmles of Tiered Systems, as kjones has pointed out, on Page 77-78 of the Book...

Hope I am not comming off as an Ass or something... I am genuinly confounded by some of your stance is all...

Keep the Faith

It's just a security layer. Sure, hacking through three firewalls isn't as exciting as gunning down three sec guards (although the situation is analogous,) but sometimes it's not about that. If a hacker wants to splice into a secure system and punch his way to the good data, he's going to end up burning some edge to get that done. That's basically the same as a team of runners who break a window and just charge through killing anyone who spots them. Rolling the dice isn't really what's going to get boring here. What makes this boring is that it's a one-size-fits-all solution to the situation. As long as the same methods work, things get stale whether there's one firewall, three or twenty. But, if the hacker should start running into too many problems with the direct approach, he'll have to start getting clever. Like you said, and TJ reiterated, one way to bypass the old-school wired security labyrinth is to just KO someone with access and go through their com. Now you've introduced a multi-staged plan to access the data more effectively, and we're getting the whole team thinking about the matrix and this data theft. That's the real objective here. A GM shouldn't try and frustrate the hacker just to be a dick or whatever you might think the point of this exercise is. The only point to using any matrix security techniques is to make the hacker think of new solutions.

However, players can certainly use these sorts of tricks to frustrate NPC hackers to near helplessness...

Yeah, I'm pretty OK with the idea that straight hacking hardcore systems from the outside should be hard and not terribly interesting. Matrix security is enough of a joke already in 2072 (Encryption slows you down for, what, a few seconds?) so it needs all the help it can get.

Tymeaus:


Let's ramble on at you a little.

You put far too much stock in the names given to the actions you can take. I don't care if an action I take is called "Rape Small Children" if what it does is trace a subscription back to its originating node - which is what the "Trace USER" (your emphasis) action does.



Oh, and having a subscription puts your Persona into the node you subscribed to, as you can't acquire a subscription without taking the Log On action.



I can find no other way to acquire a Subscription to a node. Tell me if I am wrong.

It's never outright stated (at least any more), but it is implied in the RAW that you need to have a Subscription to use a sensor.



One can also argue that proactively perceiving your environment using a Sensor is basically commanding a device, and would require a Subscription. The point is that without subscribing to the Cameras from the security node(s) there is no way for their information to be used except for ad-hoc subscriptions from the guards on the ground. They pose no threat without being subscribed.


In a secure network nothing. You have yet to explain a way to set up a Daisy Chain that does not fail, or does not involve negating any benefits you can draw from the network in the first place.


I'm not saying that you can't layer defenses, but the idea that you can increase how arduous a Matrix intrusion is by merely throwing money at the problem is basically bad for the game. The Matrix needs to be designed so as to present a level playing field between the PC Hacker and the Corp, and it is (for the most part, leaving aside Agent Smith fiascoes). The fact that having more nodes does not make it more difficult to hack you is a positive feature of the rules. Information control must be the primary means of securing a Matrix node, because that is the only way to justify any major Corp being dominated by a small group of elites.


KnightIII:

Not in my book. Page 223 has a big illustration at the bottom of the page and the Device Modes, Persona Programs, and Access IDs headings. The sidebar you quote is nowhere to be found when I looked through the rest of that chapter, either.

Are you using a previous printing or something?


Sithney:

Shooting security guards is an opposed test. Hacking a firewall is an extended test. These things are not the same. Not even analogous, really. One has a set of different actions you can choose between at each step ("now I throw a grenade because I like the explosion noises the GM makes"), the other does not. ("Okay, we've rolled N times, SO NOW IT'S TIME FOR ANOTHER ROLL, GUYZ!")


kjones:


Once you know about Node N, you can go straight to it. That's not a Daisy Chain since you are not mandated to pass through each previous node in the chain before you can access any given Node. That's what the Log On action says, and the information on Chokepoints doesn't actually contain any references to rules concepts at all. The idea of a Gateway is founded firmly on the idea of Matrix Dungeon Crawl, but MDG is not possible in SR4 because there are no limits (that cannot be bypassed) to what you can use as a target for the Log On action based on where you are.

You seem very fond of the Log in and subscription rules. So, I am morbidly curious. Lets say the corp put all its data into a computer terminal. It loads up a firewall, an IC and then plugs in a cat5 cable, runs it to a router. The router unit also has its own firewall, possibly an IC. Another cat5 runs to another computer. With, of course, its own firewall and IC. That computer is connected to the matrix. For kicks the corp drops the data computer in a hole, fills halfway with cement, then drops the router in and finishes filling the hole with cement.

Now, basic logic suggests that a typical user will log onto the terminal thats not buried in the cement, and from there be sent to the router, which will validate their credintials, and allow them access to the data computer which will also request for them to log on. Theres no shortcut. Neither the router nor the data computer has a wireless connection. You're going through at least three levels of security to get there. You could know everything there is to know about the data computer and still wont be able to get there without going though the comm computer and the router first.

And to answer you question, my core book is older. Its a "corrected 3rd printing by FanPro LLC". So it may be different from newer ones. But that aside, the above logic is sound.

I love how you're completely ignoring the intent of the Matrix rules here. Do you really think that you understand how this stuff should work better than the people who wrote it?

Maybe I'm getting a little ways away from RAW here, but security through obscurity is no security at all. All it would take is for a single lucky hacker or disgruntled worker to leak the address of Zurich's innermost layer onto the Matrix at large, and suddenly every two-bit hacker and their mum would be swarming over it like flies on a carcass.

That makes no sense whatso-goddamn-ever.

Lets address this shall we...

First... You cannot bypass Hardwired Node A, B, C, And D to get directly to Node E by some magical teleport that does not exist in the rules... IF the system is set so that you are chokepointed at A, B, C, and D before you get to E, YOU MUST pass through all of these nodes in sequence and deal with their attendant security one at a time... that is just how it is... by the Book... That is what Chokepoints are all about... You are MANDATED to pass through each chokepoint, if that is how the system is configured...

Second... Subscriptions are from node to node, not from Node A to Node E (though you could definitely set it up this way if you wanted to d so, not sure why you would want that though), Completely bypassing Node B, C, and D, if that is the way it is configured... If Node A only subscribes to Nobe B... you can not use that subscription to access Node E... It Does not work that way, either in the descriptions of the Rules in the Book, nor in the examples provided...

Third... As far as the Trace User Action... It traces the User back to a Physical Node form which it accessed the Wireless Matrix... (in my example, Node A)... It DOES NOT give you the User at Node E; for that you would have to Hack from A to E and the Trace Program is not capable of that action... the only things that can perform that action is a Persona, IC or Agent that has the Relevant Program... so in this case... you get the Node, as described in the Description, just not the User...

As for the Log On Action... Only a persona or Icon can perform that action, Hardware does not do so, so a Hardware that is always connected does not have to "Log On"... it is connected by a Subscription (either Hardwired or Wirelessly)...

I have detailed at least 2 methods of securing a network using layerd nodes... you refuse to see that the RULES I am using are indeed the same RULES that the developers used to set up their examples of a Tiered System... I am beginning to think that it is not my explanations that are the problem, but your understanding of the way the Hacking Rules and System Design in Shadowrun inter-relate and operate...



I think that you show a smattering of Hubris if you think that systems should be a level playing field between Runners and Corporations... Especially when a corporation has millions at their disposal for system security... Systems are going to be designed with System Security foremost.. Not towards the considerations of those who would break into the system and rape it of its resources...

The Fact of having more nodes means that it will take you that much longer to hack that system if you want to get to the good paydata... there is really no way around that dilemma... any other response portrays the Corporations as stupid and carefree... Informational Security is just a small portion of what actually goes into securing a system...

Using your interpretation means that the Corporation is not being dominated by a few hacker Elites, but by the masses of Script Kiddies with time on their hands... Whereas with my Interpretation, those Hacker Elites are the only ones that will hit the really big systems... those that the Script Kiddies hit and die on en-masse... These are the systems that Fastjack, Dodger, and some of the more old school hackers hit... you cannot get more elite than that...

And yes, that means that any system that has more common architecture will likely pose little to no challenge to the dedicated hacker... he will get no thrill from the attempt, and will penetrate the system almost at whim... this fits the cannon pretty well in my opinion... I mean really, how exciting is it to take the local Azmart node and make it dance to your every whim... <Yawn... Boring>

Hope that this helps... I do truly enjoy the discussion, as it has gone so far...

Keep the Faith

The sidebar in question appears on page 223 of the non-Anniversary edition of the Core Rules. I assume that it has been left out of the Anniversary Edition because the examples given in the sidebar are (somewhat) fleshed out in Unwired.

KnightIII:

"Basic logic" says sweet fuck all until you state your assumptions. I believe one of yours is "you can only use Log On for nodes that are topologically adjacent to your current node", and you are trying to prove the proposition "you can only use Log On for nodes that are topologically adjacent to your current node". In other words, I believe you are begging the question. Sophistries become no-one.

Let me answer, though, through a question. Did you log onto a backbone router as part of making your way to the Dumpshock forums? Why would needing to do so be any more "logical" or secure?



Tymeaus:


Look, you totally misunderstood my point about subscriptions and cameras. In order to use the cameras you need to have them subscribed on your node, right? Well, if you are using the Security node to monitor the cameras, then those cameras need to be subscribed on the security node. Your model involves the following chain of subscriptions:
An -> Bm -> C -> D
However, to have camera data accessible in D you need a subscription from D to An (D -> An). Then you can trace the subscription back to D and avoid the chain entirely. Your "chain" involves having no capacity to use your resources.


Let's just discuss for a moment what your second chain design involves. A subscription can be mined for information only (since the Trace User action only gives you information on where a subscription originates, and Matrix Perception tells you what a node has subscriptions to). Having a subscription to a node does not give someone in your node special powers (it doesn't even let them use actions that require a subscription to the target since they have to have the subscription), right? So you need Information and the Log On action to get to Node N (since Log On does not need a subscription). Your chain is therefore based on occluding the existence of nodes beyond the next in the chain.

Once you know that node C or D exists, however, you must be able always use Log On to get to them. But, like I said, a subscription gives people in the node that the subscription is on have no special powers, so it must be that only the Information gives them the ability to use the Log On action to get to the next node. Since Info + Log On lets you access a node, Log On always being available, the only thing that prevents you from accessing node X is Info. If you can get the Info for node D, then you can access it.


The Log On action, sure, has to be taken by a user of a node, but the Subscriptions are held on the node itself. Nothing stops a user from using Log On with one of the Personas a node can generate and then just leaving everything as is and walking away. It creates a Subscription that hangs around - how else do you have your devices slaved 24/7?


Your previous attempt at a chain design failed because having an Account on a Passive node gets you Access to the node. You can Hack an Account for yourself, so the Hacker can get Access by... Hacking. Gee, that'll hold them off! (Should I really have to remind you why you failed previously?)

You have not detailed one working Daisy Chain. Looking at the things written in the "Tips and Tricks" section, I can find nothing that looks like a rule, and nothing that looks like it interfaces with any existing rules. The very title, to me, implies some exploration of the higher level ramifications of the rules - but rules relating to the implications of network topology on matrix actions, I cannot find anywhere.


I refuse to answer the text that accuses me of hubris except to note that you misunderstand my interpretation. Information control becomes a vital part of running a secured site, and the first step a hacker takes towards a hack is to do legwork on their target to get get the location of the target node. Script Kiddies don't do legwork



kjones:


Your understanding of "intent" is the product of your own ruminations, and therefore intimately shaped by your own perceptions and beleifs. You are labeling your own impressions the "intent" of the writers. Well, in all likelihood. The only way you could know the actual intent of the writers of the Matrix system would be... well, to be those selfsame people. If so, please enlighten us so that I may angrily rant at you about its failings.

The response to a verifiable breach of information security for a server that you happen to control is to take that server offline and give it a new identity. Your'd almost think that there aren't two different ways to do that under RAW, the way you're talking.




Addressing Chokepoints:



There is no imperative statement about the effects of topology in this paragraph. It is a discussion of the ramifications of topology, but the underlying rules that would support these conclusions do not exist (any more, maybe) so far as I can see.