Protecting drones from hackers

Protecting drones from hackers

Leehouse View Member Profile	Jan 6 2007, 07:59 AM Post #1
Target Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 4-January 07 Member No.: 10,539	My current situation is that i'm playing a rigger, in a game that is starting up soon. Our entire group, myself included, is very new to shadowrun(we are taking a break from DnD) and my main concern now that I have the character fully statted out is, how do I keep my drones on my side? From what I've read it seems ridiculously easy for hacker to hack into my drones, and jump in or spoof commands at them all day long. As such I'm looking for a way that is well established and obviously within the rules to make it harder(not impossible because then my GM will find a way to kill me) to hack them.

Magus View Member Profile	Jan 6 2007, 08:01 AM Post #2
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 617 Joined: 28-May 03 From: Orlando Member No.: 4,644	I have previously asked this question last month. Here is the link to the thread titled Drones, Drones, Drones http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=15985

Leehouse View Member Profile	Jan 6 2007, 08:02 AM Post #3
Target Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 4-January 07 Member No.: 10,539	Thanks.

kerbarian

Jan 6 2007, 10:39 AM

Post #4

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Joined: 16-December 06
Member No.: 10,387

QUOTE (Magus)

I have previously asked this question last month. Here is the link to the thread titled Drones, Drones, Drones

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=15985

Hmm. I just scanned through that thread, and it seems to largely be discussions about what fancy tricks would work for protecting drones. I've been thinking about this a little myself, and here's what I've come up with that has a clear basis in the rules:

To protect against hacking:

Upgrade the drone's Pilot and Firewall. Pilot is the equivalent of System on a drone, and thus it requires upgrading Response first. You can run Firewall 6 on any hardware, though.
Run agent(s) to defend the node. In order to avoid a response decrease on the drone itself, you could buy extra commlinks and run the agents there, and then the agents log into the drone and watch for intruders.
Encrypt the device. A hacker would have to successfully Decrypt the node before he could use the Command program to control the drone. This one isn't quite clear in the rules, but there's a thread with some clarifications here.

To protect against spoofing:

Upgrade the drone's Pilot and Firewall (see above under hacking defense).
Encrypt your connection to the drone, to make it harder for the attacker to determine your access ID.
From the FAQ, "You can tell a Pilot to ignore certain commands or to only follow pre-specified commands", which limits the damage a spoofer can cause. For example, you could tell your drone to ignore orders to kick you off or transfer command to anyone else.
The FAQ also mentions that the GM can "apply a dice pool modifier to the hacker for the Opposed Test equal to -3 for security privileges or -6 for admin privileges" for spoofing tests. You could configure your drone so that it only takes combat orders from an admin account. It's up to your GM, but you can try to convince him to go with the idea in the FAQ and impose a penalty on spoofing commands to your drones.

Finally, there are a few things that aren't really extra defensive measures, but you should make sure your GM takes them into account when hacking/spoofing your drones.

Your drones will always be operating in hidden mode (unless you have some reason to broadcast their presence). This means that after an opposing hacker spots the drone, he still needs to make an Electronic Warfare + Scan (4) Test (p. 225 of the BBB) to find its node. He can't start his hacking attempt or try to send a spoofed command until then.
Spoofing a drone requires that you impersonate someone who's currently controlling the drone. If no legitimate user is controlling the drone -- e.g. it's unsubscribed and operating on its own -- then it can't be spoofed (though it could still be hacked).
From the BBB p.224, "In order to spoof orders, you must first complete a successful Matrix Perception Test on the persona you are impersonating in order to gain its acccess ID." I generally assume that you can make that perception test if you can listen to (decrypted) traffic coming from the controller, but it's not actually worded that way. If your GM wants to make spoofing harder, he could rule that you need to be logged into a node that the drone controller is also logged into in order to examine his persona. That makes spoofing essentially impossible without hacking first, assuming the drone controller has spoofed up a fresh, fake access ID right before the run.

[edit: removed references to System on a drone -- it only has Pilot]

Jaid

Jan 6 2007, 08:00 PM

Post #5

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 7,089
Joined: 4-October 05
Member No.: 7,813

QUOTE (kerbarian)

[*] Upgrade the drone's Firewall and Pilot. Upgrading Pilot requires upgrading System first, which requires upgrading Response. As mentioned above, though, you can run Firewall 6 on any system.

not quite. pilot *is* system. depending on how you read it, the firewall must also be the same, since the pilot rating is also system (though that, at least, is a little more iffy).

as another thought, if you give drones area jammers and have them jam all frequencies except the one they operate on, that means the attacking hacker will likely need to be running fairly impressive ECCM to reach your drones, or figure out what frequency they use. of course, this has the drawback of being somewhat illegal, but presumably it forces the opposing hacker to figure out your frequency, which should take time (i'm not sure if it would be possible, but a jammer that has a strong effect which deteriorates quickly would be useful... anyone know enough to know if that's possible or not? if so, it would be a handy houseruled piece of equipment to have.)

kerbarian

Jan 6 2007, 08:11 PM

Post #6

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Joined: 16-December 06
Member No.: 10,387

QUOTE (Jaid)

not quite. pilot *is* system. depending on how you read it, the firewall must also be the same, since the pilot rating is also system (though that, at least, is a little more iffy).

The FAQ explicitly confirms that you can have Firewall higher than System.

You're right on System not being used in a drone, though -- it's only Pilot. I keep thinking of Pilot as equivalent to an agent program, rather than equivalent to System.

QUOTE

as another thought, if you give drones area jammers and have them jam all frequencies except the one they operate on, that means the attacking hacker will likely need to be running fairly impressive ECCM to reach your drones, or figure out what frequency they use. of course, this has the drawback of being somewhat illegal, but presumably it forces the opposing hacker to figure out your frequency, which should take time (i'm not sure if it would be possible, but a jammer that has a strong effect which deteriorates quickly would be useful... anyone know enough to know if that's possible or not? if so, it would be a handy houseruled piece of equipment to have.)

I don't think that would actually help. Or if it did help, it would increase the difficulty of detecting the drone's hidden node (up to GM discretion). Once you've detected the node, you presumably know the frequencies it's using, including following any frequency-hopping.

hobgoblin

Jan 6 2007, 08:23 PM

Post #7

panda!

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242

QUOTE

You're right on System not being used in a drone, though -- it's only Pilot. I keep thinking of Pilot as equivalent to an agent program, rather than equivalent to System.

i think the best way of looking at it is that pilot is system with special agent code bolted on to control the drone body.

when it comes to rules pilot == system, no question about it imho...

Jaid

Jan 6 2007, 09:04 PM

Post #8

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 7,089
Joined: 4-October 05
Member No.: 7,813

QUOTE (kerbarian)

QUOTE (Jaid @ Jan 6 2007, 12:00 PM)

not quite. pilot *is* system. depending on how you read it, the firewall must also be the same, since the pilot rating is also system (though that, at least, is a little more iffy).

The FAQ explicitly confirms that you can have Firewall higher than System.

system and firewall are two separate programs. pilot and pilot are not. it's at least open to discussion. it's not terribly likely to be a problem balance-wise though, so either interpretation should do fine.

kerbarian

Jan 6 2007, 09:19 PM

Post #9

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Joined: 16-December 06
Member No.: 10,387

QUOTE (Jaid)

system and firewall are two separate programs. pilot and pilot are not. it's at least open to discussion. it's not terribly likely to be a problem balance-wise though, so either interpretation should do fine.

"Pilot is used in place of System for vehicles, drones, and agents, but otherwise has the same function as System."

Sounds to me like it's explicitly replacing System and not Firewall. Also, from the description of agents:

"Agents have their own built-in Firewall attribute, equal to their Pilot rating."

Agents are called out as having a special Firewall rating in addition to their Pilot rating, implying that normal Pilot programs don't come with a Firewall attribute.

Jaid

Jan 6 2007, 09:33 PM

Post #10

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 7,089
Joined: 4-October 05
Member No.: 7,813

QUOTE (kerbarian)

QUOTE (Jaid @ Jan 6 2007, 01:04 PM)

system and firewall are two separate programs. pilot and pilot are not. it's at least open to discussion. it's not terribly likely to be a problem balance-wise though, so either interpretation should do fine.

"Pilot is used in place of System for vehicles, drones, and agents, but otherwise has the same function as System."

Sounds to me like it's explicitly replacing System and not Firewall. Also, from the description of agents:

"Agents have their own built-in Firewall attribute, equal to their Pilot rating."

Agents are called out as having a special Firewall rating in addition to their Pilot rating, implying that normal Pilot programs don't come with a Firewall attribute.

hmmmmm.... well, at a quick glance, you appear to be right... i had missed that. presumably i had read the part on agents and assumed it was a general rule, not a specific one :P

which sounds just fine to, i'm certainly in favor of making it tougher to swipe drones :)

Serbitar View Member Profile	Jan 6 2007, 09:48 PM Post #11
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534	Note that in RAW pilots are not agents. Pilots are agents + OS + Node. A fact I personally do not like, because its anti streamlined.

hobgoblin View Member Profile	Jan 6 2007, 10:31 PM Post #12
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242	how is that not streamlined?

Serbitar View Member Profile	Jan 6 2007, 10:35 PM Post #13
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534	We have nodes, we have agents. Why note make pilots agents that run on nodes? There are already rules for that. Instead an additional entity, pilot, is invented, and not described fully. That it is making things more complicated proove your couple of posts here.

hobgoblin View Member Profile	Jan 6 2007, 10:42 PM Post #14
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242	i dont see the complication at all. but then i see it as being similar to a programming function or class with multiple inheritence ;) a node is just a logical construct generated by the system. the agent is a semi-intelligent program. you take the best bits of the agent and bolt it onto the system and you have the pilot. how hard is that?

Serbitar View Member Profile	Jan 6 2007, 10:50 PM Post #15
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534	1.) As I said, you have agents, you have nodes with attributes. No reason to add an edditional entity. Adding additional entities of rules when they are unnecessary is anti streamlining. If there is a reason, please give it, if not, its anti streamlined. 2.) If everything is so clear, what was discussed the last 10 or so posts? The obvious approach is to say: Pilot is an agent running on the nodes vehicle. The agent is running autosoft. This makes it very clear what can be upgraded and how it can be upgraded. As I said, there are already rules for that. In the case of RAW, it is absolutely not clear whether the pilot can be attacked in VR, whether it counts towards the Response Rating, how to upgrade System and Firewall without Pilot and so forth.

yoippari View Member Profile	Jan 6 2007, 11:28 PM Post #16
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 375 Joined: 15-November 06 From: Salem, Dwarven Hell (Tir Tairngier) Member No.: 9,865	With the jammer idea, would a head jammer be useful on medium or larger drones? On small ones the size of a head it would encompass the whole thing, but on a doberman or lynx it could only affect a small area. Something that is NOT clear to me is if a Pilot program has an icon and can defend itself from hackers. It LOOKS like a drone has basicly a commlink with an agent running on it. So the agent has the additional pilot software for the drone side of it (at the same cost of just the agent), but the whole thing is just programming as far as the agent is concerned. So attacking a hacker would be the same as attacking a security guard, except instead of using the Targeting (heavy weapons) program it would use the Attack Program.

Jaid

Jan 7 2007, 12:36 AM

Post #17

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 7,089
Joined: 4-October 05
Member No.: 7,813

QUOTE (yoippari)

With the jammer idea, would a head jammer be useful on medium or larger drones? On small ones the size of a head it would encompass the whole thing, but on a doberman or lynx it could only affect a small area.

Something that is NOT clear to me is if a Pilot program has an icon and can defend itself from hackers. It LOOKS like a drone has basicly a commlink with an agent running on it. So the agent has the additional pilot software for the drone side of it (at the same cost of just the agent), but the whole thing is just programming as far as the agent is concerned. So attacking a hacker would be the same as attacking a security guard, except instead of using the Targeting (heavy weapons) program it would use the Attack Program.

well, a headjammer might help protect you from weaker signals at least. but anyone with a strong signal is gonna cut through even the strongest headjammer with ease, but then i guess that just makes it easier for the controlling rigger to set the jammer to full frequency jam and cut through the traffic using ECCM on both ends. (after all, most drones will have 3+ signal by default, which means the default 3 pilot should be able to run ECCM 3, which is not less than the best headjammer rating possible. furthermore, i wouldn't think it's too uncommon for a drone that you expect to be autonomous to have response/pilot 4 or 5, even as early as chargen, which means it could run ECCM 4 for an effective signal of 8. (incidentally, imo a headjammer should be able to pack more oomph than a mere rating 6, but whatever).

additionally, i would say it only makes sense that direction radio should be a possibility, and as such would rule that you could program your drone (given appropriate software... prob electronic warfare at any rating, maybe add in scan) to simply track your location vs it's location, and use a relatively narrow radio transmission for communication.

hobgoblin

Jan 7 2007, 05:25 PM

Post #18

panda!

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242

QUOTE

1.) As I said, you have agents, you have nodes with attributes. No reason to add an edditional entity. Adding additional entities of rules when they are unnecessary is anti streamlining. If there is a reason, please give it, if not, its anti streamlined.
2.) If everything is so clear, what was discussed the last 10 or so posts?

cute, real cute.

your not helping the confusion by stating that nodes have attributes. nodes do not have attributes, comlinks and similar have. nodes are just a logical construct on the matrix to help locate and interact with the comlink or other hardware device.

maybe its clearer to me because i have a interest in computers and networking and see that for the first time in ages, the SR matrix rules are, at least in concept, close to the logic of how a real world network functions.

QUOTE

The obvious approach is to say:

Pilot is an agent running on the nodes vehicle. The agent is running autosoft. This makes it very clear what can be upgraded and how it can be upgraded. As I said, there are already rules for that.

In the case of RAW, it is absolutely not clear whether the pilot can be attacked in VR, whether it counts towards the Response Rating, how to upgrade System and Firewall without Pilot and so forth.

all your problems appear because you assume that pilot is a extra attribute alongside system. its not. just check the pilot entry in the matrix jargon sidebar on page 216.

sure, its under the agent/ic/pilot entry in the price list. but thats because it costs extra to have the decision code added.

sometimes i wonder if not your trying to create the appearance of extra complexity in the matrix rules so that you can flog your pdfs and say "look everyone, the savior is here with his revised religious text" or something like that.

basically, i have yet to find one post from you about drones or matrix rules thats the least bit helpful. more often then not they rather add to the confusion.

Serbitar

Jan 7 2007, 06:12 PM

Post #19

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,498
Joined: 4-August 05
From: ADL
Member No.: 7,534

QUOTE (Hobgoblin)

cute, real cute.

...

Would you please answer the points raised instead of being childish? Or would you want to be taken for a child?

I quote them again so you may anser the questions:

QUOTE (Serbitar)

1.) As I said, you have agents, you have nodes with attributes. No reason to add an edditional entity. Adding additional entities of rules when they are unnecessary is anti streamlining. If there is a reason, please give it, if not, its anti streamlined.
2.) If everything is so clear, what was discussed the last 10 or so posts?

-------

QUOTE

your not helping the confusion by stating that nodes have attributes. nodes do not have attributes, comlinks and similar have. nodes are just a logical construct on the matrix to help locate and interact with the comlink or other hardware device.

It really does not matter to me how you define nodes. I am talking about the thing that has matrix attributes and can run agents and personae. Call it how you wish. It does not change the argument.

QUOTE

maybe its clearer to me because i have a interest in computers and networking and see that for the first time in ages, the SR matrix rules are, at least in concept, close to the logic of how a real world network functions.

Rules should work without background knowledge. But I congratulate you to your knowledge.

QUOTE

all your problems appear because you assume that pilot is a extra attribute alongside system. its not. just check the pilot entry in the matrix jargon sidebar on page 216.

Wrong, all the questions in this thread arise, because a pilot is not an agent but an OS. If there was no problem, this thread would not contain these questions. It does, so the problem is there. And there are enough other threads about exactly this topic. You cant ignore that.

Furthermore:

QUOTE ("SR4 p. 216")

Pilot - A robotic brain program, similar to System, but including semi-autonomous desicion-making abilites. Used for agents and drones.

So an Agent needs a Pilot which is System? Well, have fun explaining this . . .

QUOTE

sure, its under the agent/ic/pilot entry in the price list. but thats because it costs extra to have the decision code added.

Your interpretation. If that is what is intended its even more confusing and should be errated.

QUOTE

sometimes i wonder if not your trying to create the appearance of extra complexity in the matrix rules so that you can flog your pdfs and say "look everyone, the savior is here with his revised religious text" or something like that.

I dont have to, the fact that people ask questions about it and discuss it is enough.

QUOTE

basically, i have yet to find one post from you about drones or matrix rules thats the least bit helpful. more often then not they rather add to the confusion.

You are free to ignore them.

hobgoblin

Jan 7 2007, 06:48 PM

Post #20

panda!

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242

ugh how i hate replying to chopped up posts...

childish or not childish, i don't really care. children have an ability to see things in ways adults do not. and often that can lead to interesting insights. therefor i don't see being branded as childish as a negative thing ;)

QUOTE

Rules should work without background knowledge. But I congratulate you to your knowledge.

thanks, i guess. problem is that given how new the SR4 matrix system is, it could fill a book the size of SR4 alone if one where to try and impart a detailed description of all the concepts and other stuff floating around in the text.

QUOTE

So an Agent needs a Pilot which is System? Well, have fun explaining this . . .

huh? what is there to explain? ok, so there is a bit of circular logic in that agents are running on top of system. but if one envision the agent as a kind of virtual computer. or maybe a better ingame comparison is a virtual drone ;) the issue goes away :P

QUOTE

Your interpretation. If that is what is intended its even more confusing and should be errated.

maybe added was the wrong word to use. maybe i should have written included. you say potato, i say potato :P

QUOTE

I dont have to, the fact that people ask questions about it and discuss it is enough.

yes, but your not helping to contain the debates by presenting a highly alternate take on the rules. and more often then not the questions could be answered if only the threads from the time around the release of SR4 had been stickied.

people seems to avoid searching, or reading threads that are below the first page or so (the latter not being helped by people accusing them of thread necromancy if they happens to post on a old thread).

so having a stickied forum faq would be highly helpful (any of the moderators watching this?).

the number of threads on a subject do not equal the severity of the problem imo. mostly its people looking to confirm if their take on the text at hand is the "correct" one.

then people like you come flogging their alternate views and presto confusion sets in and a debate starts.

hell, the original starter of this thread is long gone. when looking back, we are into a third layer of debate at least :P

QUOTE

You are free to ignore them.

believe me i try. but that could be seen as agreeing with your take on the rules, something i do not.

Serbitar

Jan 7 2007, 07:35 PM

Post #21

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,498
Joined: 4-August 05
From: ADL
Member No.: 7,534

QUOTE (hobgoblin @ Jan 7 2007, 07:48 PM)

then people like you come flogging their alternate views and presto confusion sets in and a debate starts.

THIS is a valid concern.

But then, I make it very clear, that this is my view and not RAW. So there should be no problem.

Would you please now answer my question number 1?

Why do you need the additional entity of pilot (however it is defined) when the entity of agent is already defined, that does exactly what the entity pilot does with existing rule mechanics?

BTW: I could add another link in my sig to a page saying "Hobgoblin does not agree with this" if that would make you happy.

hobgoblin View Member Profile	Jan 7 2007, 09:05 PM Post #22
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242	the pilot is needed because its not quite a "agent" and at the same time not quite a "system". its a blending of both and the new entry/name indicates this. and i don't see the need for a extra entry in your sig :)

Serbitar View Member Profile	Jan 7 2007, 09:13 PM Post #23
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534	That does not answer my question. Why is it not just an agent? What hinders you to just use an agent as the drone pilot running on the drones CPU (as you dont like the term node). Why the need to invent something else when the existing rule concepts already perfectly cover it?

Rotbart van Dain...

Jan 7 2007, 09:14 PM

Post #24

Hoppelhäschen 5000

Group: Members
Posts: 5,807
Joined: 3-January 04
Member No.: 5,951

QUOTE (Serbitar)

Why do you need the additional entity of pilot (however it is defined) when the entity of agent is already defined, that does exactly what the entity pilot does with existing rule mechanics?

It's the other way round:

Agents are Pilots not running on hardware directly and having an integrated Firewall.
Basic case of inheritance...

Serbitar View Member Profile	Jan 7 2007, 09:20 PM Post #25
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534	Rules wise the basic entity is the agent. Everybody understands agents (well at least a little), but nobody does understand pilots.

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »