 Another realitybraker, subscription rule kills wireless hacking |
  |
 Feb 16 2006, 01:52 PM
Post
#26
|
|||||
|
panda!  Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242  |
they do something tho, they add a extra step :P hmm, now that i think about it, could one use a drone to do the signal interception for the spoof? ie, insert a small drone into the area, log into the drone over the matrix, then use it as a signal router and spoof the device. makes me realy want to invest in those microdrones (fly on the wall have never been more correct :silly:). |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
|
Feb 16 2006, 01:56 PM
Post
#27
|
|||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
being a node is independent of VR or AR mode. a node is a device that can talk directly to the matrix. or atleast thats my take on it. so if there is a node out there, you can access it both via AR or VR. if your going to hack it however, i would suggest going VR, unless your meat is realy wired for speed. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 16 2006, 02:01 PM
Post
#28
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 349 Joined: 16-January 05 Member No.: 6,984 |
A subscribed object only accepts commands from a specific signal or set of signals. Spoofing is the process of mimicing the signal that the object will accept commands from. So you are able to start trying to spoof a device that isn't subscribed to you, that is the point of spoof. Spoofing however does require you to know the matrix ID of the person who's device you are trying to spoof, which requires a successful Matrix Perception Test (pg 224). This means that you can create choke points yes, but those choke points can be sidestepped with the right maneuvers. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 16 2006, 02:27 PM
Post
#29
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
This is only partially correct. Wireless connections are broadcast and receptor systems which means there is no such thing as secure two-way communication. In SR4 what keeps one device from recognizing anything but another specific system is security software (Firewall) and registered accounts/IDs. These can be forged with the appropriate tools (including Spoof) or by first acquiring the valid account passcodes, etc. Note there are specific requisites to successfully Spoof something so sometimes it isn't possible, but the quote you want (relating specifically to drones) is on p.224.
It won't recognize you as a valid user because you don't have a valid account, which is something slightly different. There are ways of brute forcing your way through Firewalls, spoofing devices and forging accounts in the rules.
And there's nothing wrong with it. You hack whatever node is connected to the Matrix (normally the personal commlink) and slip in through that.
As Tinker has correctly pointed out by RAW you can only really spoof devices with agents and pilot progs. However, by RAW you can also brute force your way through the Firewall or forge an account. Note, also by RAW, every device has a Firewall (simplified into the Device Rating) and so can be brute-forced. All the subscriber rule defines is the use of "chokepoints", particularly with regards to commlinks. The fact that a commlink is logged onto the open Matrix means its hackable. You target it and hack the firewall and from there potentially have access to its entire subscription list. If you limit your link to recieveing incoming from only one ID (such as the MSP) then you're isolating yourself from all the functionality of being wireless in the first place - you won't be getting direct broadcasts from people, stores and devices around you which is the whole reason why Joe 2070 uses a commlink. |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Feb 16 2006, 02:45 PM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
This works only against drones and agents by RAW (and doesn't even work upstream). Just because everything is wireless doesn't mean that everything should be easy to hack. I mean, people raise the issue about SR4 all the time that now ever moron with a commlink and a bit of hacking skill can cause all kinds of problems for society at large. You should have to hack someone's commlink to get access to their smartlink. Hackers are more viable now, but they shouldn't be gods among men. A hacker with a few hours on his hands can VR over to any system attached to the Matrix and just about always break inside without detection (using the non-brute-force method). Hacking a matrix connection node isn't that hard, it just takes time. The same thing with a commlink. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 16 2006, 03:01 PM
Post
#31
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
You do. I described the procedure above. What the chokepoint system destroys is the "I can see it, I can hack it" philosophy of SR4. With the chockepoint system, the hacker wont be able to hack that security camera (car, sensor, laser beam, maglock) over there. He will have to go through the heavily protected secnode. Then we are back at SR3 hacking. But you still owe me an answer: Can I hack smartlink (provided I am near enough) without hacking (by spoofing or whatever) the comlink first, or can I not? And why. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 16 2006, 03:06 PM
Post
#32
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Your smartlink is more than enough protected by the low signal rating. Somebody would have to stay 3 meters next to you to do this AND there is skinlink. No extra rule needed. No need to sacrifice SR4 wireless hacking for this. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 16 2006, 03:11 PM
Post
#33
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 297 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 248 |
I give you a quote to consider:
Granted, this text only specifically mentiones agents and drones, but any other device wouldn't be much different (maybe even easier). The subscriber rule mentiones, that two devices must "know" each other to allow communication between those two. Question is: How, do they know each other? Possible, and iMHO most likely, answer based on data in BBB: By the access ID each device has. The Spoof Command Rule states that you can get this access ID by a sucessfull Matrix Perception Test of the Persona in Question. Once you have this access ID, you can impersonate it. One other possible stepstone would then be an encryption Layer over the communication, which first must be unencrypted, to send a command. I conclude from this, that: a) A connection is secure, unless the access ID of the "controller" is known. b) Once said access ID is known, you can do whatever you want with the "recipient". What does this mean for everyday hacking (everything IMHO)? Once you spot a Drone or simmilar thing, the hacker should try to locate the node, said drone communicates with. You may not be able to listen into it, or send on the same "frequency" but you know it is there, and you can locate it, using Electronic Warfare Rules. Once you pinpointed the physical location of the nearest node a Device/Drone/Agent communicates with, you try to get a good look at it (matrix wise). This gives you the access ID, and on you go. In the case of an enemy hacker, his signal range will possibly be wide enough (he sends commands to the drone), that you can do a matrix perception roll on him, without even moving, since you are already in his range. If you aren't you have to go closer, either through the matrix, logging into a closer node, or physically, moving your commlink into his range. In the case of a security network, i assume that most nodes will have a quite low signal rating to force intruders to come close to other security measures. But the node controlling (or relaying) the commands to a Drone (for instance) should have a - slightly - larger range, since it must communicate with a drone flying around. Large enough that you can get a "matrix look" at it, once you enter it's signal range. Other devices, like maglocks for instance, may be set to accept wireless connections from other sources (RFID-Tags, for instance), opening a possible way to exploit those "holes" to hack this device, since they aren't set to a specific access ID. So, yes the subscriber rule makes it difficult to influence devices that are set to accept only wireless connections from a specific source, but once you are in range to that controlling node, you can make a Matrix Perception Roll on that node, getting it's access ID. With that you can start to fool the device. So, to secure something, one has to subscribe ones devices to specific nodes AND use encryption AND keep a low signal rating, to force intruders to come close enough, that it becomes dangerous for them. Sometimes all of it (especially the range part) simply isn't possible. The subscriber list is only one part - which can be overcome - to slow down intruders. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 16 2006, 03:12 PM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Karma Police Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,358 Joined: 22-July 04 From: Gothenburg, SE Member No.: 6,505 |
Routing traffic through a security node in a way that does not limit your functionality must be kind of hard. Even configuring a firewall not to stop things you might want to get through is a bit tricky for someone with poor computing skills like me.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 16 2006, 03:23 PM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Karma Police Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,358 Joined: 22-July 04 From: Gothenburg, SE Member No.: 6,505 |
Darkness: Using electronic warfare to locate the controling node of a device is not the only way. Unless you're in a hurry, the most likely way of doing it may be through legwork and data searches. If you find out through rumors or sniffing out some old Access ID logs, you don't have to stroll around using your commlink as a radar.
The real question though, is can you peceive the persona without first hacking the node? I don't think the Access ID of a node is publicly listed, so you propably have to get in. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 16 2006, 03:34 PM
Post
#36
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 297 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 248 |
That's just another way. But yes, you're right of course.
You don't have to actually access a node to scan it. As a node it sends out signals, which can be interpreted, and define its "persona" for those "looking" at it. Once you get the signals, your commlink will interpret them for you, displaying the icon. And the node will send out it's access code somehow. And unless a directional link is used (unlikely), in all directions possible. It has to, unless the "recipient" couldn't receive it himself. So your commlink will pick it up. The Matrix Perception Test is nothing else, but to see this specific data piece between all the rest, the node sends out. The rest (like threshold 'nd stuff) is coverd in Matrix Perception, p. 217. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 17 2006, 04:52 PM
Post
#37
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 914 Joined: 26-August 05 From: Louisville, KY (Well, Memphis, IN technically but you won't know where that is.) Member No.: 7,626 |
The answer is: It is possible but you have to be close....reallly, really close. IF the smart linked device is using wireless (but not skinlink) AND you are within signal range of the smart linked device then you can attempt to hack the commlink. (Since this is a 2-way communication you have to be in range of the weaker device, in this case the smart link) If they are using skinlink you could do the same thinks *IF* you are touching them the whole time. IIRC you first have to locate the signal with a Scanner, make an Electronic Warfare + Decrypt attempt vs. any encryption, followed by a Matrix Perception test of the Comm and finally you make a Spoof check. This has already been gone over in one of the many "how do I hack subscribed drones" threads. Do a search and you should find one (or more) that have the required tests and page references. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 17 2006, 05:02 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Thanks for the info. I didnt know that there were such threads.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 17 2006, 06:08 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 89 Joined: 29-January 06 From: Orlando, Florida Member No.: 8,210 |
I would still think there are areas of security that are not open to the wireless eviroment and you would have to break in the old fashion way and then access it.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 17 2006, 08:09 PM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
They talk about this in some places... things like wireless-blocking walls are pretty common. I've constructed servers where you had to actually be in the room, physical data busses that are *manually* opened and closed at specific times of day for synchronization of data between systems, security systems that haven't been updated to use wireless (that is, they talk to their main computer with wires), Closed Circuit TV (instead of Wireless TV) surveillance... and of course, some of the serious military types have gotten tired of the issues associated with wireless and the modern battlefield (IE, the enormous amount of jamming flying around all the time) and still use the oldschool hard-wired smartgun links. Wireless is a nifty piece of tech, but the whole world can't *afford* to upgrade in a 5 year span.
Tons of the old stuff is still around, and you should feel free to make life interesting for your hackers. Don't make all those BP they spent on being ready to take on a wireless network totally useless... but don't feed them the easy "hax0r in the bathroom" solution every time, either. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2006, 02:23 AM
Post
#41
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 327 Joined: 28-January 06 Member No.: 8,209 |
The BBB defines spoofing, on page 224, as forging commands to agents and drones controlled by another persona. On page 238, under drones, it specifically says that to control a drone, it MUST be linked to you as a subscriber. So pretty much... Spoofing is nothing more than sending a message that is falsely identified as issued by someone else - and we have a specific example of it functioning against a subscribed object. However, it only refers to sending commands, not hacking into them or something similar. So this could easily be extended to say that you could send a spoofed command to a Smartlink subscribed to a Commlink, for example, but accessing data files on someone's subscribed cybereye wouldn't be the same thing. It's also worth noting, though, that there's other things to this. While spoofing lets you falsely identify yourself as someone else, you must already have decrypted the communications link and such. So no... Subscribing isn't useless, by any stretch; it adds an extra level of difficulty to any attempt to command something communicating by subscription. It just isn't foolproof. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 18 2006, 02:26 AM
Post
#42
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 327 Joined: 28-January 06 Member No.: 8,209 |
Yup. Page 256: "...High-security systems will avoid wireless altogether, sticking to an internal wired network that is either completely isolated from the Matrix, or linked via secure gateway networks, perhaps through carefully timed and temporary connections." |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 18 2006, 03:02 AM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
I made up my mind.
SR4 wanted to simplify hacking. The subscriber rule makes it too complicated, by adding just another layer, which could easily represented by just a higher firewall rating. So I skip it. Most systems where the rule would have made sense are protected by low signal rating, skinlinking, or radio blocking paint anyways. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2006, 07:32 AM
Post
#44
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
unless the number of pan devices count towards the total number of subscriptions you can have (and that to me is a bit silly as it forces a street sam to have about the same comlink as a rigger, just to manage his cyberware), yes its a bit over the top and mostly a kind of fluff text.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2006, 09:02 AM
Post
#45
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
Yes, all devices do count towards the total number of subscriptions but, no, it shouldn't have much, if any, impact on a samurai since his cyberware is controlled via DNI and not wireless. I'm going to say this one more time because people seem to have misread it: wireless did not replace DNI in function, it's use is complementary. Motor control of your cyberarm is still DNI, there is no reason for making it wireless. Most cyberware does also possess wireless functions, but mostly to run system diagnostics or interface with implanted gear (such as a cybersmartgun, etc) - there are three different points in SR4 where the common functions of wireless in cyberware are mentioned. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 18 2006, 09:02 AM
Post
#46
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Of course it would be. Accessing a file is simply sending a command that states "send me this file". The cybereye will address the data transmission to the device being spoofed, of course. But, since broadcast is a wireless medium, it is rather simple to intercept anything addressed to that device. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 18 2006, 10:52 AM
Post
#47
|
|||||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
so, if i have display contacts and a smartlink. setting this all up via a comlink will require a rating 2 comlink if i want to be able to access nodes, drones, or for that matter other peoples comlinks? i dont know why, but that sounds flat out silly to me... |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 18 2006, 12:05 PM
Post
#48
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Only Drones, Agents and Nodes coutn towards the subscription limit. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 18 2006, 12:16 PM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
There is no Subscription limit.
There is only a limit to active Subscriptions at a time. That applies to any connection. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2006, 12:27 PM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
That would make everything, even a smartlink and contact lenses a full blown node.
Doesnt sound so good. Including the gun, a smartlink user would already use up 3 nodes. For simplicity I would only make active drones, agents (things with a pilot or agent rating) and nodes the hacker is acessing actively via VR/AR counting to the subscriber limit. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 1st February 2026 - 09:24 PM |
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.