 Spoofing to bypass commlinks? |
  |
 Feb 28 2006, 10:19 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 18-August 05 Member No.: 7,569  |
So, I'm working on some generic system setups. You know... daisy-chained, master-slave setup, others I'm sure.
The most common, and the one advocated by the book, is the master-slave setup. The commlink is the master, and all of your other devices (cyberware, cameras, etc) are subscribed to it. This has benefits: The (probably) better security of the commlink must be breached before a hacker can access your other devices, since your other devices will only talk to your commlink. However, is it possible, using the Spoof Command option, to interface directly with someone's stuff by pretending to be their commlink? Calypso |
 |
 
|
|
Feb 28 2006, 10:24 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 297 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 248 |
This is discussed here:
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=11835 |
|
|
|
|
Feb 28 2006, 10:32 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 18-August 05 Member No.: 7,569 |
Thanks. That more or less confirmed what I thought, with the possible exception of: Sniffer. I was assuming it would go:
Device A will only talk to Device B, and vice versa. Make a Spoof test against Device A so that it thinks I'm Device B, and do as I please. However, I may have to include the following step (which was mentioned in that thread). Make a Sniffer test to intercept and analyze their communications. Calypso |
|
|
|
|
Feb 28 2006, 10:39 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 371 Joined: 10-January 06 From: Regina Member No.: 8,145 |
I have been making my players make a successful Trace operation as well as the Intercept test as the rules specifically state that a successful Trace gets you the Commlink ID. Don't forget having to Decrypt the signals if they're Encrypted.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 28 2006, 11:59 PM
Post
#5
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 297 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 248 |
IIRC correctly, it was mentioned in the thread given, that you have to use Electronic Warfare rules to find the correct wireless transmissions between A and B. Intercepting a wireless Signal (p. 225) includes an Electronic Warfare + Sniffer (3) test, so your assumption was right on target. ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 1 2006, 12:16 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
There is nothing in the rules that lets you use spoof to get in the way of any subscriber link except for drones and agents.
Just thought I'd point that out. If I were to allow it as a GM, I'd only allow the hacker to issue commands to the device and not really hack it. Anything you do with two way communication involved is going to tip off the real commlink that something is up. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 1 2006, 01:38 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 18-August 05 Member No.: 7,569 |
To say that a drone is different than any other Node is silly.
Anything that is communicating with something else is subject to a "man in the middle" attack. While it's true that spoofing commands to something isn't the same as having compromised it, it very easily can be. 1) If the thing with which it thinks it's communicating has account creation priveledges, then you can spoof the command. 2) Really, the only way such an attack, in this case, can be detected is if you say to Device A "Okay device, give me admin priveledges." Device A broadcasts "Okay!" Which both you AND Device B receive. Device B kinda goes "... huh? I didn't ask for that. ALERT!" Calypso |
|
|
|
|
Mar 1 2006, 02:33 AM
Post
#8
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
Not really. The only rules for using spoof to mess with a device are very specific to drones and agents. The drone gets to use its pilot program to resist the inserted command. This leads me to believe that drones really are different from most other nodes. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 1 2006, 03:27 AM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 18-August 05 Member No.: 7,569 |
If you want to do a strict reading of the rules, Agents don't have a Pilot rating.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 1 2006, 03:32 AM
Post
#10
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
Huh?
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 1 2006, 03:45 AM
Post
#11
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 18-August 05 Member No.: 7,569 |
Ah, right you are. I also think I now understand the argument for not allowing Spoofing. It only allows spoofing on things that are autonomous. I believe I found what I wanted. Page 224:
That (basically) allows a man-in-the-middle attack. Calypso |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 1 2006, 01:49 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Ain Soph Aur Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,477 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Montreal, Canada Member No.: 600 |
Not saying the point is moot, but a smart setup will be using a skinlink between slave nodes and his commlink. That means the slaves aren't wifi enabled, making them immune to wireless hacking. You'd HAVE to go through the commlink to get to them.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 1 2006, 03:46 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 18-August 05 Member No.: 7,569 |
Indeed. And I also expect that high security networks will still be wired, with no connection to the Matrix.
But I suspect that the majority of people are too oblivious to how it all works to have a secure setup. Just like in real life. Calypso |
|
|
|
|
Mar 1 2006, 04:17 PM
Post
#14
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Especially when it is much cheaper and faster than digging up walls. BTW, let's see whether Unwired features power line LANs. ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 2 2006, 12:02 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
hmm, i wonder if MASER is still in fashion...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 8th November 2024 - 11:52 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.