Signal Jamming with Commlink, Software Jamming perhaps? Options

[The Jopp]

Software Jamming
(Electronic Warfare + Attack) VS (Signal + ECCM)

A character who has intercepted a wireless signal can attempt to scramble the connection and effectively jam the signal. The attacker inserts a random stream of data and tries to disrupt the connection.

Make an opposed test and any net successes reduce the signal rating by one for each net success. ECCM adds to the signals rating for calculating signal as normal.

What do you think? It's not a blanket jamming of an area but rather a disruption of a specifik signal.

[Dashifen]

I like it. I wonder if is shouldn't be Electronic Warfare + Edit vs. Signal + ECCM to represent the alteration of the original signal, but that's probably immaterial. It's a nice idea either way.

[The Jopp]

[Moon-Hawk]

I think this is a very cool idea.
Using Attack seems somehow wrong to me. I see your point, but it still seems very different. Of course, I'm not sure what should be used either. Honestly, I think it's worth considering making into it's own program entirely. It's a pretty powerful idea, and that would add some balance.

Also, the quality of the jamming (i.e. program rating) should probably be limited to the program rating (as normal) OR the commlink's signal rating, whichever is lower. A cheap commlink with a few dozen meter range just shouldn't be able to "talk loud enough" to jam a powerful transmitter effectively.

[cetiah]

Awesome. I like!

I have some comments though. Let me know what you think:

1) You might want to use the word "distortion" instead of jamming since that seems to be cause some confusion. Jamming tends to imply interference rather than distortion, given the way the rules read.

2) Who opposes this test? Is it the sender or the reciever? I could kind of see the argument for both, but I think the reciever would make more sense. Can you "jam" someone at your location to prevent them from calling for help (or at least giving accurate details)? Could you "jam" someone who was with you to prevent them from properly recieving all incoming transmissions? Could you be sitting in your home and "jam" some random phonecall you found on the Matrix? Could you choose either the sender or the reciever? Can you sit at home, see a news broadcast you don't like, and then get online and "jam" its transmission?

3) If successful, the reciever just gets Noise. Would this count as "encrypted" or just be totally useless?

4) I agree that the description of Attack sounds appropriate enough, but I'm with Moon-Hawk. I think it should be its own program. Although, I'm personally of the opinion there should be different Attack programs much like there are different weapons, but that's niether here nor there...

5) Why Signal? Signal of reciever or signal of sender? Neither seems to make sense under your description of how this "jamming" works. Firewall doesn't really make sense either, but given that its the omni-defense against all hacking assaults as things stand now, why not use Firewall + ECCM?

[djinni]

[Serbitar]

You might not be there!

Comments:

- why restrict to wireless?
-Signal should be irrelevant. As this is purely about data integrity. Make the test:
Electronic warfare + X vs System + ECCM
- Let the weakest link (sender, reciever) do the test (per number of dice)

[cetiah]

[Rotbart van Dain...]

The rules for finding and supressing a specific connection using are found in the Electronic Warfare Chapter.

[Serbitar]

Not software jamming that can sever non-wireless connections.

Though, I think it should be much harder, because you could throw back a hacker into his home node by severing his data trail.

[djinni]

[Dashifen]

[cetiah]

[djinni]

[yoippari]

Actually if you "Attack" their drivers you might be able to sever the signal between the signal "chip" and the system. Of course then you probably couldn't do anything with their commlink, but it would get it out of the way for a while.

[bait]

Its already covered in the rules. :)

First locate the wireless target.

Electronic Warfare + Scan ( Variable target number)

Second Intercept its wireless signal

Electronic Warfare + Sniffer ( 3)

Third decrypt the signal

Decrypt + Response ( 2x encryption)

Fourth insert static

Computer + Edit per combat turn

This method can't be detected due to step two, and allows you to avoid having to connect to the device in question.

The drawback is the time limit imposed by the edit command when your not in control of the device rather then the signal.

Heck you can even get snippy, once you've established the intercept you can get an Agent to continue to loop the Edit leaving you to enjoy what ever else your doing.