 Response and IC, I am confused |
  |
 May 5 2006, 02:18 AM
Post
#51
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 524 Joined: 12-April 06 Member No.: 8,455  |
Stupid question... does a TM need any hacker skills to drop a commlink full of Agent Smiths onto a system (ordering them to go forth and destroy in waves before they overcrowd the node)?
|
 |
 
|
|
May 5 2006, 02:35 AM
Post
#52
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 06 From: San Francisco Member No.: 8,275 |
I don't think so. You don't need any skills to fire up your Agents and send them forth. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2006, 02:37 AM
Post
#53
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 108 Joined: 12-March 06 From: TX Member No.: 8,363 |
As long as he can get the necessary level of access and has programs not on the node that he wants to run stored in physical storage he has access to, I don't see why not. Assuming the TM doesn't have Hacking or the Exploit complex form, you can Default Hacking with the -1 penalty and thread Exploit to "Hack on the Fly" in an extended hacking+exploit (Firewall, 1 IP) extended test (FW + 3 for security access and FW +6 for admin). In this case, getting your threaded Exploit - 3 (- 1 die for defaulting, -2 dice for sustaining the threaded form) each IP, so you need at least 4 net hits for threading to even have a chance. You won't have much of a chance, but it can, theoretically, be done. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2006, 02:43 AM
Post
#54
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 524 Joined: 12-April 06 Member No.: 8,455 |
damaleon: Sorry, didn't mean he didn't have TM skills, I was just referencing the earlier thread where I had missed that a TM has to have "normal" hacking skill to use programs off of a commlink, in addition to TM hacking.
|
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 02:48 AM
Post
#55
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 108 Joined: 12-March 06 From: TX Member No.: 8,363 |
oh, didn't realize that. in that case, I agree with Glayvin34, once he has access, everyone knows basic operation like loading a program. Even a TM would be force to learn how if he had any type of formal schooling, no matter how slow and backward he/she thinks it is.
|
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 06:01 PM
Post
#56
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,754 Joined: 9-July 04 From: Modesto, CA Member No.: 6,465 |
Thanks for the corrections, I knew I was on the right track. I appreciate it. ;) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 5 2006, 06:17 PM
Post
#57
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,754 Joined: 9-July 04 From: Modesto, CA Member No.: 6,465 |
Distributed Denial of Service attacks (DDoS) on current day websites envlove getting thousands of "users" to all login at once and overload a target system. They don't require admin access, but attempt to choke bandwidth and server resouces. This is modeled in SR4 by lots of Agents entering the same node. There is no mention of personas causing Reponse issues, but instead Agents. This model allows an infinite amount of users, but only a limited number of "free thinking" programs (Agents) to draw on it's resoueces. I like the idea of being able to do this and I don't see the need to restrict it since you'd need to get all those Agents into the system in the first place by unloading yourself or having them Hack in themselves. DDoS-2070: (aka ZombieArmy) Agent (Pilot-3+) Exploit-3+ DumpBot: (Persona dumped) Agent (Pilot-1) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2006, 06:25 PM
Post
#58
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 524 Joined: 12-April 06 Member No.: 8,455 |
Well, I'm thinking beyond just sitting there and eating CPU...
Launch a bunch of agents and have them go out and start trashing the system, perhaps focusing on key nodes if you've mapped out the system. That buys you a few precious turns, maybe even a few minutes, before the ice cleans out the system or the admin gives up and reboots. Also, because they're not as limited in number as spirits or sprites, you can make one heck of a distraction against one system while you sneak into another one. |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 06:59 PM
Post
#59
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
That depends on it's role, see Device Rating Table and funds of the owner.
It means it has the first four at 6, and Signal at whatever fits per Signal Table.
It's a checkstick, no real interface included.
Infinite - running too many may cause them to be ineffective, though.
Infinite - running too many may cause them to be ineffective, though.
Because exceptions kill any rule.
Because it's just one program.
No, they do count against the inherited Response of the IC/Agent.
Not at all... except RP.
You didn't even touch the real problem: Connections. At first, the rules state you can only run your Persona on Systemx2 Nodes simultaniously... which is fine. Then that changes to connections overall. Which causes any server to accept... a dozen connections at best. Even with the castrated half-open connections max of WXP SP2, you can still have hundreds of the with any normal PC, today. Basically, this results in applying the Systemx2 limit only for Persona Access, and handwaving the rest. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
May 5 2006, 07:05 PM
Post
#60
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Not if they're well defined. A rule that fits every occasion perfectly is of course optional, but rarely possible. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2006, 07:24 PM
Post
#61
|
|||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
The problem is not as much as when they apply... it's about remembering them in the first place.
At which point SR4 allows judgement calls... which is more flexible, yet requires more experience/trust. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 5 2006, 08:03 PM
Post
#62
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
True. Some exceptions are comon enough to need a rule, for the rest flexibility is better.
|
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 08:20 PM
Post
#63
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Thanks Rotbart for the comments. (Actually I was wondering where you and Frank Trollman have been lately. It is hard to get good comments and suggestions these days)
But I think I have already made up my mind. Copying from the "Idiots guide to Matrix 2.0" thread: "Furthermore I would subdivide nodes into "devices" and "hosts". It is extremely silly to think that a full blown matrix host would have the processing power of a mere comlink. Thus I would rule, that "devices" (comlink and everything else that does not have a bigger computer behind it) are affected by response "degradation", but hosts are not. That solves the DOS attack. IC would have to be restricted by common sense (as it was in SR3), maybe with some traffic arguments to make it reasonable (high traffic nodes have less IC and are less secure, and vice versa). Furthermore a host can maintain alsmost infinite subscriptions (or matrix cafes wouldnt be possible)." I would further suggest, that programmes run by IC/agents count towards the response limit, so you cannot protect your comlink better than any "host" would be protected using balance arguments. Then I would rule that only nodes are allowed to check a persona for illegimate acess (instead of analyzing IC), and only when this persona takes actions that exeeds its hacked (or valid) permissions. I did a couple of consistency checks and propability calculations with these suggestions and found that they are good guidelines for a veriety of SR4 situations. |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 08:27 PM
Post
#64
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
@Serbitar
Degradation for a given login can occur on mainframe. Because the system will not feed a process or login all it's resources, outside of the top tier of security priority (many level of security, with some sort of "system" level at the top). That top tier wouldn't really equate to the Admin login level in the SR rules, mostly because of there being so many different piority levels. It does in an attempt to protect the entirety of system from degradation. If it didn't some shmuck's do nothing infinite loop program or inifite open file loop could bring the whole damn thing to it's knees. That's really a key to how a mainframe can effectively handle so many users, rationing of resources. It is entirely reasonable for similar throtling to occur on a node that is hosted on a mainframe equivalent. P.S. Note that in that thread i linked there was a suggestion further down that the better computers would provide some limited support for extra IC that operated outside of the limit. Those IC would be running on a security/priority rating above Admin. But the system would definately want to limit how many of those they had because they represent a serious threat to overall system performance and uptime (which is king for big iron). |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 08:33 PM
Post
#65
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 108 Joined: 12-March 06 From: TX Member No.: 8,363 |
From what I remember, there is nothing limiting or degrading a node's performance by having more and more people access it currently described in the rules. It does mention that you are limited to System X 2 nodes, agents, and drones that you can simultaneously access, but nothing about how many people can be reading a node at the same time, so the effect of a current day DDoS attack is not described in the rules. It does mention that a subscription list can be practically unlimited in size, but you can only subscribe (I think it means link or actively subscribe) to so many at once. As I read it, the only way to degrade a node's response is to load more and more programs, be they agents, hacking tools, common use programs or what not, and that would require you to gain access to the node and make it run programs. If that's the case, an agent only affect the node it can be traced back to, not the ones it accesses (so if a hacker loads an agent on his Response 5 commlink sends it out to a Response 3 system before logging off, it would still be at a Response 5). I kind of see wireless like this: you can have 1 person shouting to 1 or 1 million and the only thing that affect whether they hear you is distance (signal strength) so as many people are in range can read a what a node if 100 people are shouting different things, you can only make out one or a couple at any given time (active subscription or linking limit) but you can change you you focus on at any given time If you are shouting back and forth, both have to focus on listening (you both count against the linking limit of the other) I'd apply all this to any single device and consider mainframes meshed networks, many devices completely interconnected but acting as 1 device with a common set of attributes, which then allows an expansion of the # of programs and interacting users, but doesn't increase the system, response, or firewall rating. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2006, 08:36 PM
Post
#66
|
|||||||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
That means you just removed the 'hard' limit to implement a 'common sense' limit... which would be around... not more than a handfull of them? Six of one, half a dozen of the other. :grinbig:
A device should, too. Otherwise, the whole AR concept breaks down in DoS.
They do already count... to the Response of the IC/Agent, which degrades it's effectiveness very quickly, as any Program it owns must be running. Slapping them onto the device results in immediate DoS dropout.
No real reason for that - that's what the System+Firewall is for, initally... if one does try to exceed one's right, it fails and gets reported anyway. Using RL analogies, even a home gateway running linux has a fullblown right managment system. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
May 5 2006, 09:14 PM
Post
#67
|
|||||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,754 Joined: 9-July 04 From: Modesto, CA Member No.: 6,465 |
I think you missed my point: Personas don't effect reponse, but Agents do.
PS - I fixed my typos in the quote. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
May 5 2006, 09:44 PM
Post
#68
|
|||||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
No I think that 3 IC in one system should almost be the maximum. Add more and you have super tight, unhackable security. Nobody can defeat 3+ IC of about equal rating. You may as well log off. Furthermore I sacrifice the "hard" limit due to balancing considerations. (see beyond)
No problem with this. I dont really see what should be unbalanced if you completely skip that rule.
The agent uses the nodes response. They dont have independent response. Furthermore you are multiplying total response if you grant every agent his own response and lower it only when the number of programms activated by the agent exceed his response. For example,you can run a total number of 36 programms on a node of response 6 without lowering response if you pack them into 6 agents. But you can only run 6 programms without lowering response if you let them run without agents. This sounds illogical. But the main problem is balancing. I do not want to let players or npcs run 6 agents with 6 programms on their raiting 6 commlink. This collides with my consideration, that 3 IC should be almost the maximumin security. On the other hand, if I count each programm seperately I get something which is quite consistent AND is quite good for the game balance.
You mean that everytime you attempt an illegimate action and fails, this is reported, and no other firewall+analyze actions by the node are needed? That would be perfectly OK for me. (Although I cant finde any statement in the rules, that every hack action is an opposed test between hacking+programme vs system+firewall). Thanks again for the comments. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
May 5 2006, 09:57 PM
Post
#69
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Good explanation. But my problem with the whole degradation buisnes is the following: If an agent counts only as 1 programme, players and NPCs can make their comlink into IC castles. I do not want that for balancing reasons. There is no way to handwave this, as players need rules to know what they can do with their comlink and what they can not. So I have to rule, that each program in an agent counts towards the response limit, to keep players from building the aforementioned ICbergs. But now I have a problem with matrix nodes. They should be able to be preotected a little better than mere comlinks. Thats why I skip the degradation rule there, and fortunately I can do this, because I am now in the region where players will never go (meaning ruleswise, they will most likely never design matrix hosts). I can handwave IC numbers by introducing traffic arguments and such. After all I am just looking for rules with the following baselines: Rules that comlinks even of response 6 can not be loaded (without a severe response hit) with more than 2 agents containing 6 programs at max. There cant be more because I can not handwave agruments that not all available agents are not launched immediately. Nobody can face more than 2 such monsters at once,and I want to give players achance, that want to hack commlinks of NPCs, that have such a configuration (why shouldnt they, when they players can do it). Handwaving arguments that normal Matrix nodes have about 2 IC with 4 programmes, and extreme high security nodes have about a maximum of 4 IC with 6 programmes. Furthermore I need handwaving arguments that not all the IC is loaded immediately but in a way that adds more to the tension of a good hacking experience (like a tracing routine IC first, and if it is crashed an attacking IC and then a black hammer IC and such). With the normal rules there is no reason to not load all the IC at once. Thats why I need handwaving there. The combination of: "Programmes in agents affect response" and "matrix hosts do not care about response reduction" delivers the baseline I want. The rest is just fluff tailored to fit this baseline. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2006, 10:19 PM
Post
#70
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Speaking from play experience: You are worrying waaay too much. ;) Usually, IC will never even spot an intruder - Stealth is tough to beat on Matrix Perception tests. Even if it would, nothing prevents a hacker using Agents, too. It's a bit like letting guards patrol alone... PS: The real ugly thing are data bombs. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2006, 10:46 PM
Post
#71
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Didn't i warn you about trying to make sense of SR computing? :) Actually there is some handwaving to deal with this, but you should probably drop a microdot before attempting to read it. So get ready, and make sure you stay away from the brown blotters with the Mickey Mouse stencil, people are getting really bad trips off those: An Agent is it's own program space, with all the programs that it is running integrated within that. This works because it only has one or two programs doing things at any given moment. A persona has no program space of it's own, which is why it doesn't take up a slot. So any program loaded for use by the persona must have it's own program space. Why not, then, just have a program space to load all the programs into it for a persona? Because that adds an extra layer of interface that would require extra communication interaction in the same way that you have to spend an action to tell an Agent what to do and then there is another action spent for the Agent to do it. Now just meditate on that while you listen to the chirping of the gecko pattern on the wallpaper. 8) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2006, 11:14 PM
Post
#72
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
You should definately read the "Idiots guide to Matrix 2.0" thread. There they argue, that if the IC wins in an pilot+analyze vs hacking+stealth test, they IC has sucessfully uncovered the hacker as such, a hacker with faked permissions. Thats what I am fighting against. This idea is pertly backed up by the patrolling IC paragraph on p. 222. And the chances to lose a for example 10 vs 10 dice opposed test are not low, 41,4%. Thats why I do not want IC that is constantly scanning everything and uncovering hackers with this opposed test. Still, there is lots n lots of confusion about the matrix rules out there . . . BTW:Agents are bad. They highten the danger of beeing detected, and when you are detected, the matrix run is mostly over. I think agents are mostly for doing stuff for you in a node when you have left. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 5 2006, 11:29 PM
Post
#73
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
IC are not loaded until the security alert has been raised (page 228). So no multiple IC until you screw up. (EDIT:Unless this is a hyper serious about security system, then they might allocate the resources to roaming security Agents that are constantly sweeping, but that'll cost processing power which equals money, and really they have to be able to notice you and then correctly Analyze you to figure out that you aren't legit)
Once the security alert is raised the drek hits the fan, as fast as one IC per IP at a time depending on how agressive the system security is. But even then, depending on Init rolls and you noticing the IC loading (it takes a Complex Action worth of time for the loading to occur), you have a chance that'll you'll get the option to scram before the IC even gets to act. So the system is still quite safe until you set off a Data Bomb or the system itself detects you. Just like in SR3, the key is to not get noticed and you can cakewalk through. Actually that's like a lot of things in SR. |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 11:32 PM
Post
#74
|
|||||||||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Well, maybe I could.
Basically, that is correct. Keep in mind that if the IC tries again before a certain intervall, it will lose dice.
Sure... some action is good. Any hacker with about two to three runs will have Response 6, though, and most Node will run around 4.
That's a necessity, in fact - as there are no more security tallies.
Only if you run them on the Node... if they run in your Persona, they count as Programs and are only detected if you are, anyway. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
May 6 2006, 12:08 AM
Post
#75
|
|||||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Now we are turning in circles:
So what? Scanning IC or System+Firewall? I would substitute a an analyze+firewall(stealth) test everytimea hacker performs an illegitimate action for the security tallies. No need for analyzing IC. Btw: The chance of losing a 12 vs 8 (hacker skill 6 stealth 6, vs pilot 4 analyze 4) are still 20%. Add the standard assumption that IC counts only as 1 programme, and you have 3-4 of these scanners in a 4 node. That gives you a 50%-60% chance of being detected (3-4 times 12 vs 8). Too high for my taste. A 4 node should be fair game for a 6/6 Hacker (at least 80% propability to hack in, perform 3 actions and log out undetected) |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 2nd January 2025 - 02:41 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.