 Wireless, ok why? |
  |
 Jan 30 2006, 10:56 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 17-January 06 Member No.: 8,175  |
I might be being dumb but what advantages does having wireless cyberwear bring you ?
Example Old style smartgun link cannot be hacked? New wireless ones can be!! So why would people use wireless kit? Would that not mean that most SR's would carry a basic Comlink that can be turn off and dumped if they need. Now if having a PAN/Comlink set up provided a bonus I could see the reason. |
 |
 
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 11:36 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 83 Joined: 15-January 06 Member No.: 8,164 |
Hands free access to every item in your inventory? Strap that Flashpak to your chest and set it off with a thought without taking your hands off of your assault rifle. Change viewing mode on your goggles, command a few drones, have that bad guy shoot himself while he's checking your gun barrel. Use a hold-out pistol as a makeshift spy camera. Set off traps.
All that, and your Hello Kitty screensaver too! |
|
|
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 01:00 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
a) You can turn off their wireless functionality at will.
b) There is no reason you can't have all your cyber, gadgetry and weapons setup to only recognise and link up through your commlink, in fact that should be the default for mostly everyone who has a commlink. Hackers then need to hack your commlink's firewall to get to the cyber. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 01:02 PM
Post
#4
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,486 Joined: 17-March 05 From: Michigan Member No.: 7,180 |
Or get your commlink's ID and spoof it. At least, I think that is doable... the gadgets will only respond to your commlink, but for all they know, they ARE responding to your commlink. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 30 2006, 01:51 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 7-October 02 From: A figment of you imagination Member No.: 3,423 |
I haven't read the rules on hacking and excryption yet, but if looking at it from a real world perspective hacking and/or decrypting the wireless feed between yuo and your cyberware should be between impossible and just forget it.
Any wireless transmission can be encrypted. Given that you are the only one that's supposed to connect to that cyberware you can be using secret key encryption (much, much harder to crack than public key) with the key entered manually on the piece of cyberware. Given the raw processor power they could be using 4-8 kbit keys. Nowadays a 256 bit encryption is completely unbreakable and even the military rarely pushes over 512 and difficulty increases exponentially with the length of the key. Spoofing would be impossible since nobody else knows the key (secret key encryption never tansmits the key). In fact any of the techniques used today to encrypt internet connections is completely valid for applications in this context. The only thing that might worry me is jamming since none of these devices can use high powered transmitters due to battery size restrictions. I'd also assume that every bit of cyberware you have with a wireless connection can turn it off just to make sure. The only real entry point for a hacker is your main commlink, if you leave the wirelss on. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 01:55 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 |
Directional jammers though...
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 01:57 PM
Post
#7
|
|||
|
Running, running, running Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769 |
and this would make for a pretty boring game, especially for a hacker. "Oh, i'm sorry, Linux 2070 was installed, and they used 1024 encrption, you're screwed, sorry, next action?" Encrpytion is breakable, with a Decrypt + Response (Encryption rating x 2, 1 Combat Turn) test. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 30 2006, 02:02 PM
Post
#8
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 7-October 02 From: A figment of you imagination Member No.: 3,423 |
That's why hackers in my games are rare and rarely do much "movie" style hacking. It also means that there's a reason for the hacker to be in the frontlines (if you can't hack the firewall, just go to the machine behind the firewall) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 30 2006, 02:17 PM
Post
#9
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,150 Joined: 19-December 05 From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex Member No.: 8,081 |
Bruteforcing might take a lot of time, but if i remember my math correctly, it is not proven that this kind of encryption can't be broken with an easy algorithm. Quantum computers are another possibility to break this kind of encryption - if such computers will be viable. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 30 2006, 02:32 PM
Post
#10
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 7-October 02 From: A figment of you imagination Member No.: 3,423 |
A simple algortihm nobody's found yet. And they've been looking. Anyway I assume you are talking abotu breaking RSA encryption by finding an easy way of factorising numbers. That's public key encryption. You'll notice I've specifically said secret key encryption. Most secret key encription algorithms do not suffer from this "vulerability" and they are mathematically proved to be "unbreakable" (you either have the key or you have to bruteforce). Also if by any chance you had qunatum computers in the sr4 world, you'd also have access to qunatum encryption which is not only unbreakable but also un-bruteforceable |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 30 2006, 02:34 PM
Post
#11
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,635 Joined: 27-November 05 Member No.: 8,006 |
That is why you should use Encrypt to create any links you make. It forces them to take the extra step of Decrypt before they can step in the middle and spoof. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 30 2006, 02:56 PM
Post
#12
|
|||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,486 Joined: 17-March 05 From: Michigan Member No.: 7,180 |
Yes, AN extra step... but it probably (assuming you're running encryption 5) will take a moderate hacker (6 dice = 2 succeses average) about 5 combat turns (15 seconds) to break. In combat, that is an eternity.. but if he's jsut sitting at the table beside you at a resturant, that is nothing. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 30 2006, 03:12 PM
Post
#13
|
|||||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,150 Joined: 19-December 05 From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex Member No.: 8,081 |
They still are ;)
I actually thought of RSA encryption, since that's the one i am familiar with - cryptology basically shuts down my brain function as protection against boredom.
I have to take your word for that, you know, the ... *yawn*. I know, the one-time-pad is unbreakable, if you can find a method to make the key really random (thats the hard part ;) ).
Don't know about that, but it seems likely that people would come up with new ways to protect their data. I can't imagine how that would work, but that's in no way a counter argument ;). |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Jan 30 2006, 03:32 PM
Post
#14
|
|||||||||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 7-October 02 From: A figment of you imagination Member No.: 3,423 |
About Quantum encryption: the theory of how it would work is known today, like a we have a theory of how a quantum computer could work, we're just missing the tech which is roughly the same for both. About 1 time pads and other secret key algorithms: the thing about 1 time pads is that not only they cannot be broken by using "tricks" it also cannot be feasibly be bruteforced (unless you know what the result should be), and any bruteforced keys are useless. Secret keys algorithms can be burteforced but a 256 bit key is already unfeasible. About RSA: I know they are still looking, in fact RSA itself is offering a lot of money to anyone who can break their encryption. Nobody has succeded yet and it's quite possible nobody will ever (of course as of now we have no proof either way) In the end it all comes down to however yuo want your game to work, if you think it's cool that someone might highjack someone else's gun or cyberarm and that the best encryption you'll ever find can be broken in less than a minute, with all that entails, go with it. I just prefer a world where I can connect my computer (quite possibly installed in my head) to the net without beign taken over by a script kiddie and my smart gun will fire when I say so and not when someone else's decideds it might be funny. For this I'll pay in a weakening of hacker characters, but I think I can turn that around into a good thing. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Jan 30 2006, 03:36 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Running, running, running Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769 |
well, the easiest way to fix that would be to increase the interval time on hackign tests from 1 combat turn, to whatever you feel is approriate, you dont "weaken" the character per se, you just make it more realistic.
I think the main problem mayu lie in that the virtual world still tries to be seperate from the meat world, and thats not really the case any more, so either things should've been slowed down in the frist place, or metahumanity gained speeds to react at a thought naturally. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 03:44 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 68 Joined: 26-January 06 Member No.: 8,201 |
Just to note, most things like smartlinks and such have very low signal ratings...so you either have to be within punching distance...or you have to go through their comlink. So they have to hack into your comlink, and then try to spoof the commands. Two step process, three step if you add in encryption.
But thats why we have things like skinlinks. Wireless is cheap, anyone with smartlink contacts or glasses can grab a smartlinked gun, flip on wireless and go a blastin. Wireless is great for some things, but it also has vulnerablilities. As does skinlinking things. pick up that gun, but its not skin linked so you have to activate the wireless capabilities and subscribe it. Granted you're not picking up lots of guns usualy...but figured I'd toss that out there. (edit)Well 4 steps if you add in finding your comlink (which should be in hidden mode) |
|
|
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 03:56 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Bruteforcing a 256 bit key is feasable with enough processing power. Today few, if any, computers with that kind of speed exist. In the future, it is almost a given that they will.
It isn't unreasonable for a comlink to be fast enough to brute force a 256 kilobit (or better) encryption key in under 15 seconds. Of course, since SR computers no longer use the bit standard there is some confusion on how powerful they really are. This pretty much hinges on what exactly a pulse is. Of course, the hacker doesn't even have to break encryption at all. He can just put an Agent in a copy of the newest firmware update and spoof a 'critical update' notification. And the poor sammies who download Mitsuhama's new reticle pack will find that their smartlinks don't work quite right inside that corp's facilities. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 03:59 PM
Post
#18
|
|||||||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,635 Joined: 27-November 05 Member No.: 8,006 |
It depends on whether and what the GM imposes for a limit on the number of rolls for the Extended Test. I doubt that this hasn't all been discussed at least twice before here. Both about how well, or not, Shadowrun encryption models real life encryption and about how to make the Decrypt step meaningful in non-combat situations. Topic specific boards tend to run on a loop with obvious questions coming up repeatedly. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Jan 30 2006, 05:41 PM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 7-October 02 From: A figment of you imagination Member No.: 3,423 |
115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639936 that's 2^256 that's the number of possible keys 1/2 of that is the average number of attempts to bruteforce a key 5789604461865809771178549250434395392663499233282028201972879200395 that's the time it takes in seconds to bruteforce it if you can do 10^10 attempts per second (which is far more than it's physically possible today and probably 2070 too, to put in perspective a 3GHz machine today could do 3*10^9 attempts if each attempt took 1 clock cycle, an attempt is unlikely to take less than 10^6 cycles, giving ~3000 attempts per second max) 183461494596097604734788109692574701265733111303838954862628 that's the number of years it takes to bruteforce the key 15000000000 that's the age of the universe in years 12230766306406506982319207312838313417715540753589 that's the number of current lives of the universe it would take to brute force the key if we assume a computer that's can do 10^20 attempts a second (10^10 times faster than the previous) the time take drops to 18346149459609760473478810969257470126573311130383 years roughly for this kind of problems like many others encountered in computer science (factorising a number is another example) it doesn't matter how much processing power you have, a minimal increase in the complexity will require an exponential amount of processing power to solve (and note that I'm not using the word exponential as an exaggeration) I should also point out that a bit is not just a "cell" of memory in your computer but also a unit of information, thus the concept of bit can be applied independently of the underlying architecture of the processor. Whatever a pulse is it will carry x (x>=1) bits of information. I agree that usign trojans is a much more efficient way of getting round the entire problem, so I hope the sammies will keep their virus scanners up to date |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 30 2006, 05:59 PM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 371 Joined: 10-January 06 From: Regina Member No.: 8,145 |
Even if you are using a Private Encryption key it has to be stored on your Commlink *somewhere*, unless you are telling me that the guys is typing in his password every half-second when his Smartlink wants to connect to his Cybereyes, not likely. Therefore, that Private Key must be stored *somewhere* on his PAN, on his 'Link or not. Therefore, a Hacker could break into his Commlink, then use a good Browse program, find the key, and Decrypt the network.
Private key encryption is *not* "unhackable" it just trades the Decryption test for a Browse test: six of one, half-dozen of the other, I would say. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 06:05 PM
Post
#21
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 35 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,658 |
Oh good, another "real-world encryption math about a game" post. :)
milspec |
|
|
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 06:08 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 371 Joined: 10-January 06 From: Regina Member No.: 8,145 |
Also keep in mind that computers in SR are optical, not electron-based. Current limits on computing speed are based on the Parasitic Capactiance properties of the little itsy-bitsy electron pathways on circuit boards. Basically, when you are operating in the Giga-Hertz band even centimetre long "wires" start to look like Transmission lines and "bleed" electricity into space.
Theoretically, optical computers do not have that problem because Parasitic Capacitance doesn't apply anymore. The jist of what I'm saying is this: You're math for breaking encryption is based on *our* technology and doesn't necesarily apply to SR. We're not really sure how fast Optical computers will really go. Final note: it's a game! Yes, it might not seem realistic to break Encryption in 15 seconds, but neither does it sound realistic that you can see a huge dragon flying overhead hurling magical fireballs at you. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 06:11 PM
Post
#23
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
Guys, with respect to this encryption/decryption difficulty thing, let's just assume the following:
In Shadowrun, c. 2070, if you're good enough, P=NP. Problem solved. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 06:11 PM
Post
#24
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,150 Joined: 19-December 05 From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex Member No.: 8,081 |
Your numbers seem a bit off, the RSA 640 (bit) Challenge was solved last year, using a 80 cpu (2,2 GHz) opteron cluster, in about 5 months. (btw: the poster said 256 kBit key - but i assume you meant 256Bit key)
I don't mind if a really good hacker can decrypt my data in less time than it takes to type this sentence. But i really would like if the decryption of the new mega hot research data from ares would take a little longer ... |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 30 2006, 06:13 PM
Post
#25
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
You seem to be comparing a asymmetric key system to a symmetric key system. Brute forcing them works very differently. (Simply put, symmetrics are harder per bit to brute force) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th April 2024 - 04:18 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.