 Wireless Technology |
  |
 Feb 3 2006, 08:50 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 983 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 326  |
First, let me preface this with the caveat that I have not yet read my copy of SR4.
However, given the prevalence of wireless technology in SR4, is there a stated capacity for smartlinks to be wireless? If not, is the unstated capacity there? |
 |
 
|
|
Feb 3 2006, 08:51 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 327 Joined: 28-January 06 Member No.: 8,209 |
It's stated, and in fact used as an example, if I remember correctly. You can do things like fire the gun remotely on a wireless network with a smartgun link.
I'm still reading through my copy; I've skimmed the whole book, and now I need to get more deeply into it... But I THINK you can also do things like hack someone ELSE'S Smartgun link, and then remotely... Say... Eject their clips. In the middle of a firefight. That mental image amuses me. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 3 2006, 08:52 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 68 Joined: 26-January 06 Member No.: 8,201 |
smartlinks are now, by default, wireless.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 3 2006, 08:59 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Technomancer Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,638 Joined: 2-October 02 From: Champaign, IL Member No.: 3,374 |
@neko128
Yes, you can do that. Might be a hell of a hack as, if the opponent is smart, the smartlink is only talking to their commlink and their commlink has a firewall as high as they can get it plus all the Programs necessary to defend its turf, but if you can get through all that then, yes, you could make it eject the clip or do anything else that a smartlink does (i.e. mess with the targetting to remove the +2 pool modifier that smartlink has). |
|
|
|
|
Feb 3 2006, 09:01 PM
Post
#5
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,486 Joined: 17-March 05 From: Michigan Member No.: 7,180 |
Or use a "spoof" program to spoof that guy's ID... fooling the device in that case is probably a lot easier than hacking into his commlink - but requires you to be within a couple of feet of him. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 3 2006, 09:06 PM
Post
#6
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 68 Joined: 26-January 06 Member No.: 8,201 |
If you're that close...you're close enough to knife him or be knifed...ejecting his clip at that point is the LEAST of your worries |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 3 2006, 09:09 PM
Post
#7
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,486 Joined: 17-March 05 From: Michigan Member No.: 7,180 |
Agreed. I'm just saying you COULD. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 3 2006, 09:17 PM
Post
#8
|
|||||
|
Technomancer Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,638 Joined: 2-October 02 From: Champaign, IL Member No.: 3,374 |
Don't forget that to spoof someone with their ID, you have to have also spent time to percieve them on the Matrix. Throw that commlink into hidden mode and you have to find it before you can percieve it. Encrypt it, too, and you could have to decrypt it before you can percieve the Access ID. Now you've spent three matrix actions on trying to get to their smart link meanwhile the sammie just shot them in the head. :cyber: |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 3 2006, 09:33 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,986 |
On the topic of having to be close:
There are probably plenty of ways to get around this. I imagine that if you knew where the enemy was going to be standing so you could hook up either a wired or wireless antenna so you could hack it remotely. A wired one is a definite possibility, picture it as having a really really long wire to your antenna. A wireless antenna would be the concept of re-routing a signal through another network, something you could definetly do in SR3 (Matrix) and I presume you could in SR4 too. ~ KB12 |
|
|
|
|
Feb 3 2006, 10:59 PM
Post
#10
|
|||||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
what the range of a rating 0 rfid again? 3 meters? and there are times, like when someone puts said gun to your head (lets leave the headshot cant kill in SR discussion of it tho). with a simlink you can then in theory crack his smartlink (if he have one) and covertly flip the safety or something similar. and then make it eject the clip. that way, even if there is a bullet in the chamber (another detail that SR do not cover), he will most likely be so surprised by the sudden ejection of the clip that he will try to fire the gun with the safety on, buying you some seconds... |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 4 2006, 12:12 AM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 70 Joined: 20-January 06 Member No.: 8,185 |
Also, since the smartlink is now part of your cybereyes, couldn't you hack the smartlink and flood his eyes with static?
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 4 2006, 02:39 AM
Post
#12
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
just hack the eyes for that :P
and i find it more likely that he is using display contacts, unless he have gotten cybereyes for some other reason. but those to can be hacked wirelessly. how i have no clue. getting displays, much less wirelessly enabled displays, into a pair of contacts is way beyond what i can figure out even on a theoretical level. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 4 2006, 02:58 AM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 327 Joined: 28-January 06 Member No.: 8,209 |
Can you relay your signal through another receiver? I'm thinking here about those funny eye drones, but almost anything could apply.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 4 2006, 04:16 AM
Post
#14
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
you don't hack them. you hack the guy's commlink, which the contacts route data through via skinlink. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 4 2006, 04:34 AM
Post
#15
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
That's only if your target has had the presence of mind to disable all other forms of communication with his device. If it will talk only to his comm for whatever reason, then you have to go through the comm first. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 4 2006, 04:39 AM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i don't think contacts have a high enough Signal to hack them, unless you're close enough to your target to punch.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 4 2006, 04:40 AM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 84 Joined: 20-January 06 Member No.: 8,184 |
It's strongly indicated in the book that hackers are meant to have to first hack the commlink to gain access to any other devices on a person. I can't think of any example where that would not be the case.
EDIT: Can you come up with an example where someone wouldn't configure their PAN that way? Sure it's possible to leave a device open to direct attacks, but I can't think of a reason why anyone would so I don't think it would ever come up. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 4 2006, 04:44 AM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
well, like the man said--if the device in question is configured to only accept input from the user's commlink, yeah, you have to hack the commlink (which is silly to me but oh well). but if it's not, you don't, unless the device in question has too low a signal rating to transmit to your location.
though, come to think, that's what the whole mesh network thing is for, so never mind. if someone's devices aren't configured for a single input, you can hack 'em. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 4 2006, 03:17 PM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
well, unless there is something specific in the text for contacts, their range is 3 meters, just like any other rating 0 device... as for hacking a device directly. so far noone have pointed to a bit of text that says specificaly that something like that can or cant be done. hell, we dont even know if you can run a smartlink setup without a comlink iirc... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 4 2006, 08:37 PM
Post
#20
|
|||||||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 84 Joined: 20-January 06 Member No.: 8,184 |
The above says it's a good idea to slave all your devices in your PAN to your commlink. If that's an example of a good idea, we can assume someone could have the extraordinarily bad idea of choosing not to slave one or more of their wireless devices to their commlink -- which would leave it open to hacking without having to go through a commlink first.
So, anything can have their wireless link removed, which makes a lot of sense for a lot of devices. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Feb 4 2006, 08:52 PM
Post
#21
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
last quote have been talked about before on other threads. but thanks for the other one. hmm, by extension the first quote allso makes it appear as if you dont need a comlink to run a pan, its just a very good idea ;) or maybe im reading to much into it...
hell, i would say that even if you slave your pan to your comlink, there will be a datatrail. all you need are for some other device to log data traffic even tho its not addressed to that device (known as promiscuous mode IRL networking). basicly, radio traffic can be picked up by anyone. thats why you in theory can have a mobile phone pick up the traffic to other phones managed by towers within range. a more practical application of slaving would be that devices dont give a damn about any other device traffic then whats coming from your comlink. still, with a spoofed address or a hacked comlink, thats no big "problem" (for the hacker atleast). a bigger issue is range. im guessing that unless the text specificaly says that a device have a radio range based on its rating, the range is equal to a rating 0 radio. and thats what, 3 meters? still, it makes taking the subway a security risk (like its not one allready)... |
|
|
|
|
Feb 4 2006, 08:57 PM
Post
#22
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 4 2006, 09:07 PM
Post
#23
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
thanks synner. final nail in the coffin. want to play it realy safe: forget about the comlink. run your smartlink specificaly to your contacts or cybereyes via skinlink.
still, that makes you forgo some of the perks that a comlink with a sim module can give you (like tought controled fire rate and so on). maybe unless you can use the sim module without a attached comlink. i seriously need to order myself a copy (never liked PDF's. but maybe if that sony ebook device with pdf ability is nice and cheap). |
|
|
|
|
Feb 4 2006, 09:10 PM
Post
#24
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 84 Joined: 20-January 06 Member No.: 8,184 |
IMHO, any attempt to fit SR's hacking rules into a real world network security model makes it all fall apart -- leading to nothing but tears and crying... alone, in the shower... for hours on end. ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 4 2006, 09:19 PM
Post
#25
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
some of the concepts or terms can be used, atleast to illustrate something.
its when you try to apply stuff like traffic sniffing, port scanning and other real life ways of breaking in that things fall flat. hell, i recall someone going ape in the SR3 section because he could not hex edit files... |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 27th September 2025 - 01:13 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.