My Assistant
Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
  |
 Hacking my way |
 May 8 2006, 12:11 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Shooting Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650  |
he means edge
|
 |
 
|
|
May 8 2006, 12:12 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Damn, sorry, I'm still playing SR3, too . . . I'll convert that .. .
|
|
|
|
|
May 8 2006, 12:22 PM
Post
#6
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Thanks, very good comment. I completely forgot that. EDIT: I let him be specialized in stealth, as this is maximizing probability in this example. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 8 2006, 01:15 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
Also how fast does the runner need the file?
If he has overnight he might as well do it the slowway, with packet sniffing |
|
|
|
|
May 8 2006, 01:31 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Sure, but then he might have gone for admin access anyway (no reason not to), and then he wouldnt have to roll anything at all, as an admin can do anyhting. That would have made my example rather short . . .
|
|
|
|
|
May 8 2006, 01:55 PM
Post
#9
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
But perhaps relavent? ;) However i certainly would challenge the idea that logged in as admin the decker can just do -anything- and that the decker wouldn't have to still avoid detection. After all they would still be in illegally. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 8 2006, 02:10 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
I know that you have a different opinion, but I can not model any rule set which
- lets IC analyze things - is not totally impossible to hack - does not need an infinite ammount of dice rolling - gives admin and security access and advantage over normal access with that assumption. I would recommend sattelite nodes to prevent easy hacking. The hacker may get admin access to the sattelite, by probing, but then he has to ist there for several hours if he wants to get admin access to the second line "real" node. IC or patroling security personel (security hackers?) could wonder what even an admin is doing there for hours . . . (if they detect him) |
|
|
|
|
May 8 2006, 02:15 PM
Post
#11
|
|||||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
You could, but I believe you'd only have access to the device itself. This is useful if you just want the device, but not at all useful if it's the node you want.
That's why we can still get datajacks. In fact, my hacker's first run was through a building with hardwired cameras. I had to physically get into the building and then plug into and hack a camera to get access to deal with the security node. Which is the other nice thing a datajack lets you do: get access to a fully wired system. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 8 2006, 02:26 PM
Post
#12
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
:wobble: Perhaps -you- are unable to....what? WTF are you talking about? I really think you need to go away and think about this some more. I mean "can not model any rule set which lets IC analyze things"? It is like your are a martian that just dropped out of the sky and are trying to talk about how "Bon Jovi flavoured ice cream can not possibly melt." All words in the English language, but all in all an unfathomable phrase. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 8 2006, 02:28 PM
Post
#13
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
You could not hack into the camera, as the camera, per RAW, would not accept input from you. You had to spoof an ID that the camera accepts input from. And when the camera was hardwried into the network, there would be no way that you could sniff any traffic to derive the desired ID. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 8 2006, 02:36 PM
Post
#14
|
|||||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
:? How about hot tap the wire to the camera? Assuming the camera doesn't have a DJ port right on it. No they don't have specific details in the SR4 core book for that, but it would be a Hardware Extended Test. They cover stuff like that under, I believe, CCSS in R3. Seriously, i think you are really out of your element here. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
May 8 2006, 02:37 PM
Post
#15
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Ok, the slow way: If I drop the assumption that a hacker, who has hacked in with acces rights which would allow a certain action to be performed, if it was a valid account, can not perform this action without any consequences (this is what you want) i have several problems: - I would have to make scan roles for every IC all the time, or disallow scanning IC - I would make hacking next to impossible, or skip allowing IC to analyze hackers or hacking actions - I would have to roll tons of dice, because every IC in the system is constantly analyzing each action of the hacker, or disallow IC to analyze constantly - I would have to think of some reason why somebody would want admin access, as it does not have any advantages any more As I like to have IC that is roaming about and analyzing stuff AND I want to make hacking possible AND I dont want to roll tons of IC AND I want the admin account to mean something I have to drop the assumption that you would like to see som much. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 8 2006, 02:54 PM
Post
#16
|
|||||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Apparently your memory is quite short. :P
As i've pointed out in the other thread, IC are the -response- to detection. EDIT:
To what end? What are you trying to accomplish with this. What is the goal?
You just seem way out of your element here, because there are multiple possibilities. Perhaps you should phrase the thread as a question rather than an answer? Like "What are the advantages illegally entering with an admin login?" :) |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
May 8 2006, 03:05 PM
Post
#17
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
@blakkie p. 222 Patrolling IC . . . (emphasis by me) I want to have patrolling IC, because I like the idea, i ilke how it adds to the hacking experience and because it is in the rulebook. As to tapping the camera: thats a valid thing to do, but this makes subscribing just an additional dice roll to to. Just complicating things without adding anything. I just dont like it. I stated before several times that this is my interpretation of the matrix rules.
Furthermore I think you have never tried to fit all the "possibilities" that are given in RAW to a consistent picture. The problem with the RAW matrix rules is, that the hacker has no idea what to expect, because there are too many "possibilites". I want to eliminate all the possibilities that are unpractical or make hacking impossible. Thats why I made my 3 assumptions at the start of my post. Either accept these and discuss the results, or just note that you do not want to make these assumptions (of course, then this thread is not for you) and be done with it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 8 2006, 03:17 PM
Post
#18
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
The one that starts out "Highly secure systems might employ IC..."? Well hell ya such a system is going to be hard to make a run on. Because it is -suppose- to be damn hard. So what was the point of the roaming IC. Just to envoke a sense of danger? Or to add an element of risk? Because one or two Data Bombs are a great passive way to add risk, and a bit of good fluff narative can easily envoke any lacking sense of danger.
As i've stated several times now, you really seem to be better positioned to ask questions. You are creating your own "problems" and then creating more issues by the "solution" to those problems. :rotfl: In short, i find your interpretation is roughly on par with that to be expected from a blind dyslexic -martian- pengiun. ;) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 8 2006, 03:24 PM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
You are neither creating problems, nor solutions. In fact you have not contributed constructively to any of the matrix threads arround.
I know your argumentation, I know your view of the situation (even before this thread. I considered it and mentioned you in the credits because of this) and I think, by now, everyone reading this thread does, too. So everybody who is sharing your view can skip this thread and label it "not appropriate" for him. Everybody who is interested in a workable solution can read on (at least until blakkie is coming up with his own). |
|
|
|
|
May 8 2006, 03:31 PM
Post
#20
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
I didn't contribute constructively but i STILL got a credit? Hot damn! :eek: :wobble: :rotfl: I went through the effort of explaining to you how far you head is jammed up between your cheeks. Then i offered explainations and links to other rather simple solutions. Plus i even spelled out some handly diceless rule of thumbs to help explain the rolls that are made, and how you can handle the benefits of using login hops without a lot of mucking around with +/- dice pools. So what would my post need to do to earn your consideraton as a constructive one? Is nodding in agreement to your inane, failing grasp of computer systems the only way to? :love: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 8 2006, 03:39 PM
Post
#21
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
Okay
Blakkie: Serbitar has a point in tat using patrolling IC would be a cost effective way to provide a second layer of defence to a host Serbitar: Blakkie has a point in that IRL hacking is done by packet siffing or finding a OS exploit that allows root (admin) access and abusing thepriveledges given therin, therefore shadowrun modelling it such is quite realistic. |
|
|
|
|
May 8 2006, 03:45 PM
Post
#22
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
My point is that he is complaining about it becoming "impossible", but it is only "impossible" if he makes it so. Patroling IC that actually roll to check for intruders are intended for -hard- systems. On moderate systems just fluff about IC happening by is enough to bring up story danager. Of course the GM needs to really sell it if he has cynical players. Or the GM can just fiat an IC dropping on the decker if the player becomes a bit blasie about all the system security icons passing by. :vegm: Just don't do it with a killer IC. Something like a trace is cool, because what it does is add a time suspense without an immediate danger. Hell, you can describe the Firewall+System detection of a hack-in attempt as a manifestation of an IC (a system security icon). It doesn't mean you have to use the IC crunch. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 8 2006, 03:55 PM
Post
#23
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Then tell me how you want to manage player comlinks, where they can install as much IC as the rules allow? (Analyze 6, 3-4 Analyze 6 Agents on a 6 comlink)
Johnsons, runners and people of the same category do what is possible by the given rules. You have to balance matrix hosts against that. As I said before, you have never tried to fit it all into a consistent picture. I have at least tried to. |
|
|
|
|
May 8 2006, 04:00 PM
Post
#24
|
|||||
|
Karma Police Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,358 Joined: 22-July 04 From: Gothenburg, SE Member No.: 6,505 |
Try to look at it the same way as you would a physical intrusion. The runners may have forged security access passes, and that sure is a big advantage, but they can't expect to run no risk what so ever of being caught. Matrix rules have been covering every possible thing that could happen in the past, making matrix runs shallow and limited like a board game. Simply accept that it's not like that anymore and that you need to take judgement yourself as a GM. You don't constantly make perception tests for guards in a building just because you're allowed to do you? Why on earth would you do something like that in the matrix then? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 8 2006, 04:07 PM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Good points. Thats why I am restricting anlayzation rolles to illegal actions. If every action, even those covered by the hacked account, where illegal, I would have to roll much more often.
|
|
|
|
|
May 8 2006, 04:10 PM
Post
#26
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Right off the top i'll say i envision a rating 5 commlink not availble at character creation with rating 6 commlinks being hard to come by and in my opinion should require licensing if not enforced as government/corp issue only. No that isn't exactly canon by the equipment list. But IMO they kinda dropped the ball there. Basically what rating 7 is described as i think rating 6 should be, rating 7 should be the stratosphere, and rating 8 little more than a rumor. At least for Response. Not so much for Signal, especially if they are willing to strap on a small booster backpack or fit it into a cyberlimb. But still, just as today you can't just go out and willy-nilly open up your own radio station legally, there are going to be some legal limits when your signal starts covering a wide area. Second off they just loaded up a bunch of their available processing power with protection. It is like protecting a vault by filling it with concrete. Rock solid protection, but you are now not really protecting much. This has been explained to you a number of different ways by a number of different people a number of different times. So what if the player does that to his character's commlink? So now they are going to -really- notice the decker that breaks in and drops a Black IC anvil on their head. *shrug* EDIT:And they have a lot less room for programs to protect their persona. The rest of the world? The GM has control over that and can apply sanity filters as needed. EDIT: Oh, and on the consistant picture part? Well yes I have put out information about that. But i guess you shouldn't be faulted for not noticing, being a dyslexic blind martian pengiun and all. 8) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 8 2006, 04:36 PM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 371 Joined: 10-January 06 From: Regina Member No.: 8,145 |
Also remember that you as the GM decide what is "illegal" for an Admin account and what is "legal." Corp Security designers aren't stupid. They know Hackers can get in with Admin access, so they aren't going to let Admin's do everything any time they want. Any action that is "overtly" damaging or hostile should not be under the pervue of the Admin account. Period. Therefore, the Hacker makes his Hacking roll, and the system makes its roll to oppose. In fact, I would say the system is more prone to analyze actions taken by the Admin account than any else.
Think about hueristic virus scanners. That's basically what they do. Virus usually do their nastiness by using low-level system interrupts and such (stuff that I would call "Admin" actions). The anti-Virus programs look specifically for an unusually high number of those actions and try to detect if they originate from a malicious source. So, if anything, Hackers should be "logging on" with normal User privelages and "hacking their way up" to things they want to perform. I would say that systems "watch" what Security and Admin users are doing more than regular "Joe users." |
|
|
|
|
May 8 2006, 04:50 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
Oh thank god I'm not agreeing with blakkie anymore :P :P
Blakkie the starting hacker in the book has rating 5 comlink |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 12th April 2022 - 07:04 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.