Question about hacking vehicles, couln't find anything on search about it Options

[JonathanC]

I'm curious about how hacking enemy vehicles might work. For example:

1. During a chase, assuming the target is within the range of the hacker's commlink, could he/she hack the car directly? Most vehicles have some pretty poor Matrix stats, so this seems like it would be pretty easy to do.

2. From home, I assume the hacker would break into the grid (not too hard for a good hacker, right? I don't have a good sense of how well protected the vehicle grid is) and locate the car, and connect from there. The thing is, would driving manually (not using the grid to drive the car for you) protect you from this kind of attack?

I once had my players' GridCab hacked (seemed plausible). One of the players hacked into the cab himself and fought with the enemy hacker, but had his icon crashed. At that point someone pulled out a jammer to break off the wireless signal to the cab, which caused it to automatically pull over (I figured there have to be some kind of safety measures). They later hotwired the car to drive manually (after a firefight with the group that was pursuing them). Does this sound reasonable?

[Backgammon]

Yeah. Note that security-conscious shadowrunners, unless they have a good reason (riggers), wouldn't make their car open to wireless signals. If it is though (the owner has a tendency to remote control his car, so it's wireless enabled), then you can indeed hack the crap out of it.

[Butterblume]

In previous editions, grid-systems were pretty secure. And I mean Secure ;).
After all, someone hacking in can create really big citywide chaos.

[JonathanC]

[RunnerPaul]

Unwired really needs to address the hackability levels of the basic infrastructure of the world, such as Gridguide and banking. If they're supposed to be as hackable as generalized computer systems are (as described by the main book), then Unwired needs to make mention of the daily chaos caused by random hackjobs. If infrastructure type systems are more secure, then we should be given rules for how much more secure, for those rare times when a runner team wants to try to exploit one of these supposedly more secure infrastructure systems to gain some sort of advantage.

[Konsaki]

Yes, you can turn your vehicle's wireless function off.
What does this mean? - You now have to manually drive it yourself, either physically or jacked in through a wire

Can you still get sensory input? Only from systems that are onboard the vehicle and do not require data from outside sources. (IE, GPS is a nogo unless it's a seperate unit since it requires data from somewhere else to determine where it is, though you still get thermo/low light/sound from the onboard sensors)
You just have to determine which ones require outside data and which ones dont.
If you want to recieve data, then your systems have to be able to transmit the 'Ok, I got that info, send the next set' signal back to the source.

Remember that a 'good' system is Rating 4-5. Though that still only takes maybe 1-2 turns for a good hacker in hot sim to crack into at admin level...

[Jack Kain]

You have two things the grids security and the pilot program on the vehicle's security.

It appears to me the grid aids the vehicle's pilot program however in the case of most vehicle the grid doesn't actually control the car directly.

Even if a car isn't rigger enabled you could hack the wireless signal from the grid to the pilot program and feed false data and cause the car to stop or pull over.


However if the pilot program is turned off and the vehicle isn't enabled for wireless rigging (or the wireless rigging is off). It would not be possible to hack the vehicle remotely. In most cases of the shadowrunners chasing or being chased hacking the opposing vehicle might not be an option.

Both sides would naturally wan't to drive manually one to prevent hacking and two, the cars standard pilot program isn't going to pull off any high speed manuvers during the chase.

When hacking a car you have to do it fast and with out being noticed once the alarm is raised with the flip of a switch they can switch the car to manual control and shut off any wireless signal. The best time to hack a vehicle is when the driver is unware your after him or when he's not actually in the vehicle.

[Dread Polack]

[Strobe]

It would be quite lethal if you can hack the grid and standard consumer cars easily. All you would need to do it pick somewhere your target is cruising down a highway and hack the car in front and behind. Brake and accelerate accordingly and then you have a messy accident. If your target is hot property for the Star all the better when they get called to the accident.

Just a thought.

-Strobe

[kigmatzomat]

I know this is so very much a house rule but c'est la vie.

IMG we still have "keyfob" remotes. It's not a separate dongle but a special program that runs on your Comm though you can get a fob if you really, really want it. Rules wise, the car acts like a secure RFID tag, meaning it doesn't respond unless you send the right code. Then, and only then, does the WiFi enable when you're outside the car.

When on the road, the vehicle's signal rating is typically 0, enough to reach GridGuide in the roadbed and communicate with the driver's Comm & AR toys. It generally doesn't need more except in the case of an emergency, when it goes to a high signal rating so it can call 911 by default.

We have the rule that anything that can be done by RFID, should be done by RFID. Identity must be public? Carry an RFID tag with your info. Vehicle Identification Number (VIN)? Integrated into the frame at multiple points. License plate? RFID enabled and references the VIN.

RFID has the advantage of being independent of power, unlike a Comm, which is important when the vehicle might get abandoned on the side of the road or be stripped for parts (like a Pilot system).

That's not to say that runners may not remove all the RFIDs from a vehicle and have a Comm configured to respond to the queries. That lets a rigger change a vehicle's identity with a command to Spoof. Of course, this means the vehicle has to run the Spoof utility at all times with WiFi on. There's typically no test required for the Spoof to broadcast the right RFID signals but if someone runs an Analyze against the car for some reason, there's a chance the Spoof will be noticed.

High security regions may also require Comms to be disabled or in public mode but it's idiotic to believe that an easily hacked device (generic Comm R1) will be required to walk into a federal building.

[celegar]

kig has a really good grasp on this subject for sure. in fact im gonna definitly introduce some of this stuff into my campaign.

as for the external input from other divices and their reguards to affecting the vehicle, as long as the driving and external input are on completely separate circuits then it wouldnt be hackable, well i guess you could hack the airconditioning and maby windshield wipers, but other than that its really not plausable. personally i always run two comlinks, one with my hack programs thats nonwireless most of the time and my dummy com that has my fake sin and is full of black IC. i rout my hacking com thru my dummy com and use the dummy to put out a signal, you could do the same think with vehicles. have a control com which you use directly and another dummy com that you use to interperet your external signal, that way the hacker has to wade thought 10 or 12 black IC programs in order to get to your vehicle, and has to spend complex actions finding the node each time he steps from commlink to commlink.

[Charon]

[RunnerPaul]

Vehicles would probably have more than one node: one for two-way communication with the general outside world (while broadcasting of vehicle ID could be transmitted by RFID, there are other types of communication that would need a node operating in non-hidden mode), and a second node in actual control of the vehicle that operates in hidden mode, and only communicates with those outside parties that would be authorized to issue commands to the vehicle.

[Charon]

[Dread Polack]

You're probably right about the hidden mode thing.

But also something to think about: Remember that driving is a privilege, not a right. In 2070, this might be taken to a new extreme. In some sci-fi futures, citizens are no longer allowed to drive; it's controlled by a central computer. I guess when congestion gets bad enough, and dangerous enough, we'll be better off letting a computer figure it all out for us.

Of course, in the US, we're very independent and take pride in our possessions, such as our cars. Taking control of our vehicles away from us would not be greeted with enthusiasm, but like I said, it's a privilege, not a right, and if day-to-day driving gets dangerous enough, the government doesn't have to let us.

I know this is the case in MN, maybe not in all the states...

Dread Polack

[cetiah]

In my campaign,

A vehicle has a built in commlink, usually with rather minimal ratings. There are tons of advantages to having a vehicle on the matrix including recieving traffic updates, plotting useful routes, instantly identifying the profile of other vehicles and maybe leaving friendly comments to fellow drivers, being alerted to road hazards, construction zones, or other legal restrictions in real time, and most importantly, downloading music and trideo from Matrix broadcast stations which can display as transparent images on the windshield.

Commlinks are cheap, there's no reason not to include them. That being said, someone isn't really going to hack from their car and its not going to have programs and will likely have all its attributes at 1, or maybe whatever the pilot is by default.

But none of that matters for the question posted above. The vehicle's computer recognises the registered user's commlink and surrenders all control to that commlink's node. The two commlinks are effectively one. They'll probably configure themselves automatically to the most optimal configuration (since I picture most cars as being able to mount better Signal systems than the average wristband commlink).

So you have to hack into the user's commlink using the user's commlink's Firewall. Then, all the programs and attributes of that commlink oppose any instructions you try to send to the car. Most commlinks will be passive, but not hidden.

So yes, you could hack into someone's car. And I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to take control of it, although getting control back might be as easy as turning off (or ripping out) the pilot system. Hardware + Logic (1).

When hacking a vehicle, you can't actually control the car like a rigger does, but you can send simple instructions to the pilot. It's likely that the car's own pilot system, however, will provide penalties to your tests if you try to instruct the car to do something illegal, suicidal, or something that will circumvent traffic.

If you are located in an A-rated location or better, you get a -4 penalty to your tests to instruct the vehicle to do something illegal or suicidal. You could otherwise send any other basic command that the user could such as, "plot the best course to this address and drive to that location, following all necessary traffic laws and gridguide regulations". Anyone transmitting with a legitimate law-authority-code would get a +4 bonus to command the vehicle to "pull over and shutdown" or "lock all doors and drive to nearest detention center". Tests to open doors, windows, change radio stations, or the like, recieve no bonus or penalty.

These penalties apply for both hacking and for basic driving. If you try to manually drive your car off a cliff, the car will try to stop you. These features may not necessarily be built into a vehicle that was sold in a D, E, or Z-rated location. In those places, one can fairly easily acquire alternate devices that provide a method for ending high speed chases. These devices are listed in the "Firearms" section of the equipment guide.

Edit: Law enforcement agencies don't have to hack your car. They're a legitimate user. It's a Computer+Logic skill against the vehicle's driving skill + Reaction. In an A-rating location or better, the law-enforcer recieves no bonus but the user recieves a -4 penalty to opposing the check, just as if he was giving it an illegal command like driving into another car.

Edit: It is assumed that most players, gangs, security personnell, and maybe even law officers have these helpful override "features" removed prior to the start of the game. It would make car chases no fun at all. Although, it would be funny if grid-guided recognised the car chase participants as a hazard and tried to adjust traffic accordingly. (Just about every convinience of the matrix is a "suggestion" from the matrix for players and key characters. For average citizens, these suggestions are "commands". For example, the average citizen can't drink milk after the expiration date. The refridgerator won't let them. But we have to assume the vampire could store blood in there without the chem-sniffers alerting the poison control center.)

[cetiah]

Always remember the Golden Rules or 2070:

1.) Convinience is more important than security.

2.) Profit is more important than safety.

[RunnerPaul]

[bait]

Another factor to consider, not all devices/functions would be accessible via wireless.

For example a remote door lock would not allow you to control the vehicles steering system.

Thats one reason why rigging gear is an add on for most vehicles.

[JonathanC]

[bait]

[Jaid]

[bait]

[Jaid]

sure, rigger adaptation is required to *rig* the vehicle, but there's two ways that don't require that you rig the vehicle to remotely operate it.

1) give it commands. all vehicles with a pilot rating can drive themselves.
2) remote control, ala command program.

neither of those require that you jump in, and therefore neither of those require rigger adaptation.

[bait]