Intercept Traffic, What the point? Options

[Dv84good]

I was reading over the rules on intercepting traffic. It seems you can only do it through a wire but it does seem like there is much wired communication going on anymore. The only scenerio I can think of would be if the hacker was directly interfacing with a node in which the communication was taking place.

[Abbandon]

Well.......they make it sound like if you know which nodes a persons traffic goes through you can sit there and try to intercept it....

which i think is different then just being able to intercept the invisable airwave signals being tossed around by wireless devices.


In the first scenario dude A can be in south america and dude B can be in russia and you could intercept their traffic along any of the nodes there signal is passing through.

With the wireless intercept you have to be standing within our signal range in order to intercept it.

So i guess the only difference is range. But i mean its stupid because in order to get to the nodes of a conversation between a dude in south america and russia you have to connect to the matrix wirelessly and find the node? lol.

[stevebugge]

From my understanding it's main use would be to intercept voice, text, and video. Say if you were able to log on to a signal repeater node (basically a cell phone tower) you could listen to any of the phone calls routed through it. If you're tailing someone and they get on their phone, your hacker might be able to listen in on the conversation by logging on to the nearest repeater and making an intercept test.

[James McMurray]

A large portion of net traffic is now wireless, but that doesn't mean wired is gone, or even rare.

Installations demanding high security will use wired networking, as wireless networking puts too much sensitive material out on the airwaves.

Older installations may not have bothered upgrading to wireless. Adding a single wireless access point for a wired network is much cheaper than switching every workstation to wireless, and has the added benefit that not all data hits the air.

[Ankle Biter]

I wonder if skinlink data comms count as wired, or wireless. There are various ways of intercepting skinlink comms, but what method should be used to interpret/spoof them?

[Abbandon]

You can not intercept or spoof skinlinks, they dont use nodes. Skinlinks are more like real or fake nervous systems. They are conencted to your physcial brain and it just sends out electrical impulses to control whatever it is attached to like a cybereye or cyberarm or smartlink.

All those cyber parts have wireless capability but they are not required.

[Tarantula]

Partially right abbandon.

[Nim]

And logically, skinlink wouldn't be TOTALLY immune to being intercepted. Interception would just require planting a skinlink-enabled monitoring device somewhere on the target's person.

[Aaron]

[stevebugge]

Question on skinlink:

Would/Should an electrical based attack (Stun Baton, Tazer, Shockhand, Stick'N'Shock, Lightning bolt) disrupt the signal and crash part or all of the Skinlink Network, possibly fry the recievers/transmitters?

[Jaid]

i would probably apply the knockout effect of electrical attacks to the gear, at least.

[Shrike30]

That sounds reasonable.

The best way my group has found to hack someone's skinlink has involved our face shaking their hand while our hacker piggybacked through the face's commlink, through his skinlink, and into the other guy's skinlink. It was a hoot...