 chained commlinks, commlink, hacking |
  |
 Jan 4 2007, 09:10 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner  Group: Members Posts: 2,344 Joined: 31-December 06 Member No.: 10,502  |
It's pretty straightforward to get your commlinked hacked or hack someone elses. In fact given enough time it's almost impossible to stop.
Now I figure the reason corp systems don't get hacked by everyone with a decent stealth program and hacking 1 is because they have tiered systems. You can spend hours at the basic system(which may also have usefull stuff sometimes) but once you get inside and start on the next tier you run the risk of running into always active IC, Agents, or security deckers keeping an eye on the place. I was wondering if something like that is possible with personal comlinks. You have one comlink with all your stuff on it. Than attach it to a second via fibre and use the second comlinks wireless. In the second comlink is just a very mean always active IC looking for people trying to access the primary comlink (give it periodic matrix perception tests or something against a hacker). Does all that sound right? I'm just making the transition to SR4 now. |
 |
 
|
|
Jan 4 2007, 09:25 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 |
So the commlink that is connected with a wire will trust everything that comes over a wire, and not any wireless transmissions?
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 4 2007, 09:35 PM
Post
#3
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
You turn the wireless off on Commlink #1. Trust is not an issue if that path is not even made available in the first place. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 4 2007, 10:02 PM
Post
#4
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
Does this apply? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 4 2007, 10:12 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,150 Joined: 19-December 05 From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex Member No.: 8,081 |
Of course I chained my comlink - to my wrist, it would be bad if some pickpocket lifted it (The chain isn't thick enough to really hinder a determined assailant, since I prefer loosing the comlink to getting my hand cut of...)
:wobble::spin: |
|
|
|
|
Jan 4 2007, 10:16 PM
Post
#6
|
|||||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
That FAQ question dealt with devices chained together by wireless connections. If only one device in the chain has wireless enabled, then, yes, you would have to go through that device if wireless hacking is your intent, even if your goal is the device with wireless disabled. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 4 2007, 10:34 PM
Post
#7
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
The FAQ topic does not even mention wireless connections. It's about subscribing/slaving. It starts with:
Linking via a wireless or wired connection is not in anyway implied. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 4 2007, 10:36 PM
Post
#8
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Actually, I'm really trying to emphasize to my players that "nodes" are not "hosts". The advantage of a node is that a hacking check is just a couple of rolls away. Also, nodes are, by definition, wirelessly exposed. That is, they can't really be tiered. If I have a bunch of tiered hosts to try to reflect high security, then we have the same problem we had in previous editions of Shadowrun where we needed to spend an hour for the hacker to make his separate run. No, the reason corp systems don't get hacked by everyone is that they have a huge freakin' Firewall rating, probably higher than 6. In fact, if you only one Node, not only does that have all kinds of wireless networking convenience (which is more important than privacy and security in 2070), but you can also easily (and cheaply) protect that node with a single high firewall rating, a single security hacker, and a bunch of IC agents. That's why corps don't get hacked. It's not because they have a ridiculously complex networking setup of linked hosts; presumably the successful Hacking check for access means that if the player succeeds he successfully accesses the node he was trying to access. If there's a lot of junk to get there, that just means the Threshold for that access check is really high. Nodes are not hosts. It's like a mantra in my games. And I think it makes it more fun for everyone. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 4 2007, 10:38 PM
Post
#9
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
The problem is that hosts are nodes. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 4 2007, 10:49 PM
Post
#10
|
|||||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
Regardless, to be able to hack something, your hacking programs must be able to access it. Otherwise, things like wireless blocking paint and corps that keep nodes offline from the matrix have absolutely no meaning. If the only place you can access a node, is from another node, then you must first access that other node. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 4 2007, 10:50 PM
Post
#11
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,150 Joined: 19-December 05 From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex Member No.: 8,081 |
Even if the hacker boasts rating 6 everywhere, and hacks with probing the target, a node with a rating 6 firewall and analyze program has a chance of about 17% to detect the break in. At that point, the corp will probably try to track the intruder and geek/arrest him... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 4 2007, 11:18 PM
Post
#12
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
Not true. All the nodes in the SR world are supposed to act as network switches/hubs/routers (Whatever you want to call them). Hence the concept of a mesh network, where devices have myriad connections, and allow network traffic to flow. Wireless disrupting paint or pure wired networks are useful in that they can be completely disconnected from the Matrix. The only way to access them is to walk in (in the case of a network isolated by wireless blocking material) or plug in (in the case of purely wired networks). Consider if I want to place a call from my commlink in Seattle to my old bartender contact in Shanghai I do not have to do anything special to access that huge array of nodes in between the two of you. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 4 2007, 11:34 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,468 Joined: 5-December 06 From: Somewhere in the Flooding, CalFree Member No.: 10,215 |
But if a node has its wireless connectivity shut down, running only within the boundaries of itself, sort of like it being a wired system and not part of the Matrix. If that wourld were connected to another node through optic cables and that other node was wireless capable then you can access the first non-wireless node only through that second wireless node. Or by actually being in the first node.
This also can translate to commlinks, as originally asked. If 'link A has its wireless shut off but is connected to commlink B by an optic cable, and commlink B has its wireless on, then you can only wirelessly access commlink A by first going through commlink B. The only other way to get at commlink A is if you get the actual commlink and directly hack into it. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 4 2007, 11:38 PM
Post
#14
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
Yes, but you don't gave to Hack into or log into Commlink/node B to get to Node A, you just get there, as per the FAQ. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 4 2007, 11:47 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Which basically kills the concept of chocke points. As per the FAQ, you will never ever have to hack anything except the node you want to break in, even if it is behind 5 nodes of high security chokepoints. And as you can always probe a target to gain admin access, you have a 83% to hack into every node there is with any access to the matrix without being noticed, as admin that has, also per FAQ (which I think is OK), no restrictions.
Good bye security. You can also directly hack into any cyberware, bypassing the comlink. That is not what I want. Thats why Im writing SGMs. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 4 2007, 11:48 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 53 Joined: 19-February 05 From: Charlotte, NC Member No.: 7,100 |
What you do... is put all your important stuff on one commlink... and put it in Hidden mode.... and have another link.. thats completely out in the open with a little bit of normal stuff... first off a normal scan will pop up your 'link... finding the hidden 'link tho.. is just ridciulously hard to find given the fact that they have no idea what to look for.. besides "hidden nodes" then in all that they have to search for what ever yours might be.... Cuts back on the wiz kid tring to hack into everything.
And whos gunna keep hacking away when they find your node anways.. and notice that its pretty basic? |
|
|
|
|
Jan 4 2007, 11:49 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
People who are not stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 4 2007, 11:51 PM
Post
#18
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
They exist? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 4 2007, 11:55 PM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,150 Joined: 19-December 05 From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex Member No.: 8,081 |
I'm not that satisfied with the FAQ ruling. Sure, on the one hand having tiered Nodes kills the spirit of the SR4 rules (being easy and fast). On the other hand, it's kind of wierd getting everywhere without encountering real problems. I can accept this for now, but I really hope they can come up with something more reasonable in unwired. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 5 2007, 12:09 AM
Post
#20
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
Not true. The sidebar "Network Security" on p.223 explicitly states "Not all networks are configured as mesh networks—many corporate systems, in fact, retain a traditional tiered network structure." I see no reason to deny someone who's got an extra commlink the same benefits that corporate sysadmins benefit from. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 5 2007, 12:17 AM
Post
#21
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
You mean other than the developers writing a FAQ and explaining it? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 5 2007, 12:24 AM
Post
#22
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 749 Joined: 28-July 05 Member No.: 7,526 |
The FAQ question assumes wireless connectivity because that is the default mode for devices and commlinks. :please: :please: :please: They wouldn't make a huge statement like "you can hack devices wirelessly even if they can't receive wireless signals" in such a roundabout way. Wake up. You can't trick a commlink with wireless turned off into accepting your wireless signals. It's not listening!!! |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 5 2007, 12:28 AM
Post
#23
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,150 Joined: 19-December 05 From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex Member No.: 8,081 |
The point is, the one wireless node in the chain acts as a router to the wired nodes.
So even if the node doesn't accept wireless signals, it still accepts the signals routed from the one wireless node... |
|
|
|
|
Jan 5 2007, 12:34 AM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,468 Joined: 5-December 06 From: Somewhere in the Flooding, CalFree Member No.: 10,215 |
I have ruled that if a wired node is attached to a wireless node, then you must first go through the wireless node to reach the wired one. It is like the wired node is an external hard drive on your computer, the only way to access it is to go through your computer, and if your computer is part of a netwrok then others can go though your computer to access said hard drive. But if your computer has a security system in place to limit people from accessing the hard drive, then they first have to get through that security to reach the hard drive.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 5 2007, 01:13 AM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,344 Joined: 31-December 06 Member No.: 10,502 |
Ok I can kind of see bypassing the first node. After all trafic is passing through it to the second, which is how the whole of the internet/matrix works. So someone using stealth or whatever to pretend to be that traffic could interact with the second device.
However what's with all the netword security talk on p223 about then? Is it just FAQed away? Ah well I suppose it makes for more interesting running when you have to get the decker their in person. And since any system can be comprimised at the admin level by copying a stealth 5 program a few times and sending out some kids with hacking 1 it makes sense that anything remotly useful would be held in offline storage. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 13th June 2025 - 08:33 AM |
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.