My Assistant
Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
  |
 Rigging/Hacking: help!, How to? |
 Jun 21 2006, 04:00 AM
Post
#76
|
|||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 560 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Pueblo Corporate Council Member No.: 8,332  |
It seems to me, that if I'm on its subscription list, I can give the drone commands, and I no longer have to make spoof tests. Am I wrong about this too? |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Jun 21 2006, 06:11 AM
Post
#77
|
|||||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
Sort of. You have to spoof it if you want it to follow a command. All being on the subscription list does for you is not have the drone ignore you out of hand. Once you're on the list, then you can start the Exploit or what have you. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 21 2006, 06:55 AM
Post
#78
|
|||||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
Um ... huh? Are you sure about that? If "every aspect of encapsulation" is only controlled at the origin, it wouldn't work. Each end of the communication, and every step in between, has to be equally responsible for operating the proper network protocol (both routed and routing) or it don't work. It's like playing a game of telephone, except the players are from all around the world, and the first person is the only one that gets to pick what language will be used; it might work, but it probably won't. While there doesn't have to be an intermediary between the sender and the receiver, it's faster if you're able to route your message through multiple routes at once. You gain a little bit in speed, and a lot more in security and error-checking. As far as the trustworthiness of the "outer envelope" is concerned, there are plenty of ways to authenticate an envelope. If you're using encryption, you could encrypt the lower-level headers and then check it against the outer header to validate the whole packet. You could also include encrypted sign-countersign data using something like a one-time pad. With wireless communication, though, you need encapsulation on both ends. Ever notice how 802.11g is clocked at 54 Mbps but you never even get close to that speed? That's because the best you can get is actually 26 Mbps, because every packet sent requires that the receiver double check that the packet arrived intact, which more or less doubles the traffic required per unit data transmitted.
Meh. Maybe. I think you might be fishing a bit, though. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 21 2006, 12:58 PM
Post
#79
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 244 Joined: 8-June 06 Member No.: 8,681 |
At this point, probably :) We've also wandered totally away from actual SR-related topics.
But in a distributed wireless network, if the original sender and the receiver are within range of each other, there /are/ no steps in between, right? Obviously the sender can't grossly violate the protocol, or the packets it's sending will be meaningless. But no trusted (or at least, neutral) third party has encapsulated that message. They could flood you with as many malformed packets as they liked. If the sender and receiver were far enough away from each other that the packet had to be routed through intermediate nodes, THEN encapsulation might protect you (at first glance) from malicious content.
That's certainly true with wired communication, because the actual throughput on any given intermediary link may be lower than your own maximum rate of transmission. At that point, splitting the message across multiple routes will get the whole message there faster. In a wireless network, though, I don't see how adding addition intermediaries (assuming the sender and receiver are within clear trransmission range of each other) can do anything but slow the process down. Or am I missing something here? I'm honestly not JUST trying to be difficult. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jun 22 2006, 04:45 AM
Post
#80
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 560 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Pueblo Corporate Council Member No.: 8,332 |
*slaps forehead* Right. Subscribing is like putting each other on your AIM buddy list. All it means is that the drone can hear you, not that it will listen. This would have been a lot simpler if that had occurred to me a couple of pages sooner. I was thinking that a subscription is the channel the rigger uses to issue commands. I think. It's hard to remember what I was thinking last week. Or the week before. So... What does the subscription list have to do with it? When you're spoofing, you don't need to be on it, because you're pretending that you're the guy who is on the list. And back to my original question: what does it take to give control of the enemy drone to my rigger? Once I've hacked into it, I can transfer command rather easily, I'd imagine. Is it the same for spoofing? This seems like a simple decision, but I'd like to get someone else's opinion. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 22 2006, 08:53 AM
Post
#81
|
|||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
Assuming a simple protocol, like the sort we use now-a-days, yes, it would be faster. I can think of a few reasons why to purposely send packets via multiple routes on purpose, especially when wireless is a) ubiquitous and b) security-critical. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 22 2006, 09:10 AM
Post
#82
|
|||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
It comes down to what the drone has been configured to accept as commands. A rigger concerned about security would allow himself to send operational commands, but require higher-level access, Security or Admin, to do anything else, such as give accounts. Ideally, also requiring a passkey, for that added kick. The long and the short of it is, giving commands is usually enough, at least for a couple of turns, until the rigger sends a command to switch IDs or something like that. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 23 2006, 04:58 AM
Post
#83
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 560 Joined: 4-March 06 From: Pueblo Corporate Council Member No.: 8,332 |
So basically, you've got to hack it, and set up an account for your rigger. And take away the rigger's existing account.
Thanks a lot for your patience, Aaron. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 23 2006, 09:35 AM
Post
#84
|
|||||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
More or less. Again, though, usually by the time you've done all that, your Street Sammie has torn it to shreds, or your magician has managed to beat the 4+ threshhold with a damaging spell, or something.
Null perspiration, omae. Didn't I mention that I teach for a living? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 12th April 2022 - 06:48 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.