What can be hacked? Options

[Zace66]

Im new rto SR4, and was looking for a simple list of what can and cannot be hacked. Reading the rules just doesnt give me the flavour I need.

Cheers.

[ornot]

Technically anything electronic can be hacked. A better question is "what can you do with hacked stuff?"

Some GMs might allow you to turn off a Sam's 'ware or create AR illusions; whereas others make their cybered NPCs virtually unhackable. There are many threads floating about involving stuff like daisy chaining commlinks, but I find that all a bit irritating.

[The Jopp]

Basically everything with a signal and any kind of wireless hardware.

Commlinks
Vehicles
Drones
Kitchen appliances
RC toys
Clothes (the ones with electronics weaved into them)
Guns (If wireless is active)

As long as someone has a something that is either connected to the matrix or has a Wi-Fi connection and emits a signal then it can be hacked IF it allows incoming signals, it could just be a transmitter and it’s kinda hard to hack those.

In some cases a hands-on approach might be needed (opening their electronic guts) but that is more of a hardware approach than hacking.

[The Jopp]

Although anything can be hacked and as Ornot says that there are many ways to make a hacker or NPC almost unhackable there is always a way.

Wireless interception.

The above tactic can strip away almost ANY defense since it basically steps around them and listen in and edits the data stream in the signal instead of inside the node. As I play a hacker I’ve realized that it is a very good tactic for those that mine for information for the run and goes for the intelligence angle of the hacker, yet, it feels a bit too easy.

Anyone has a way around it, or make it a bit harder (yes, im asking you to make it harder for ME since it made the last run a bit too easy)

The only thing I can think of is to switch signal/commlink or commcode with a redirect action but im a bit unsure if that would stop someone who’s already ON your signal.

[Aaron]

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Actually, it isn't really a problem to analyse a datastream, find out it's protocol and send false information in advance - including responding to queries. (While radio waves may travel with the speed of light, the information they carry doesn't in an two-way environment. Want to try? Just use your wireless laptop to ping your access point.)
You can even supress information given enough signal strength.

The rules of EW allow quite some leeway and IRL, things are quite a bit more complicated, but they are not entirely stupid.

[ornot]

The way I read the RAW, you can eavesdrop on traffic by intercepting it, but since it is travelling through the wireless waves around you, you cannot change the signal the target receives. Your commlink is not the only route the traffic is taking.

I think where it mentions editing intercepted signals it refers to the editing of a forwarded signal. Hence intercepting signals is a good way to watch what is going on, but you cannot interact with the traffic, for example changing an order. It might be possible to countermand an instruction sent to a drone by spoofing the drone immediately afterwards, but you wouldn't be able to change the order to command the drone to attack someone other than its intended target.

This might not make a lot of sense, as I'm in a hurry.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

[ornot]

[Rotbart van Dain...]

[kigmatzomat]

If it makes you feel better, assume that any 'edit' commands include some form of jamming/data corruption that ensures the data is resent. Packet corruption or loss is pretty common even in wired networks, which is why TCP/IP includes an acknowledgment (ACK) of received packets. Failure to receive the ACK results in the sender resending the original command. Pulling off a man in the middle, where you send a packet failure message will reset the data stream back to the last valid ACK. Depending on the wireless tech, you may not need to do more than simply step on the broadcast frequency and send drek to create a resend situation.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Since you are using EW, I would even go as far as stating that it is a level 2 attack.

[Wraithshadow]

Generally speaking, and this is coming more from a real world perspective than any specific rules, if it's wireless you can probably hack it. This even goes as far as things not on somebody's PAN.

Let's say you've got a hard drive in your pocket. You've severed the link to your comm because you know there's hackers out there. But because my comm's in range I can poke that hard drive and tell it, "Hey- commlink here- you're being accessed." It might have security on it, but if I can convince it I'm okay (bread and butter of hacking) then I've got it. I can do all I want with it. And if it's solid-state, you may never know. If it's a hard drive that actually spins, you might notice the hum and vibration as it kicks up.

Now I could be reading things wrong, but my understanding is that's the way it tends to go. Now, if you're using the bioelectric field on your body rather than a wireless connection, it's not as easy. but, I still just need to get close. Say you've got a very attractive face for the team. She's got the hacker subscribed to her PAN, and he's just sitting there, waiting. Mr. Johnson shows up- she greets him with a smile and a handshake. The hacker now has a connection to Johnson's bioelectric network. That might be severed, but the face plays very nice, and keeps touching Mr. Johnson or keeping her hands near his on the table- he of course doesn't mind this. So long as she can keep her hand near his, the connection stays open- and the hacker should easily be able to deposit a little something on Johnson's commlink to contact his via wireless connection. The face charms some extra nuyen out of the guy, the hacker gets all sorts of info, Mr. Johnson gets not a clue.

And if you think that's the only time that bioelectric can be an issue, just imagine the fun of public transit.

As for traffic, it's not difficult to simply listen in on all traffic around you. Encryption can be an issue, but it's a degradation thing. If you send one encrypted word and that's all I get, I probably won't be able to break the encryption. The more you send, the more I have to work with. And the more I have to work with, the easier it gets to break. A hacker who can listen in to communications over the long term should easily be able to break encryption schemes without ever letting anyone know what he's up to, so long as he doesn't broadcast. A hacker alongside a team of runners that avoid wireless communications (or use an unusual frequency or maybe- if you aren't splitting up- bioelectric fields) can easily keep everyone informed as to just what's going on without the folks they're listening in on ever being the wiser. Unless, say, you go and smile for a security camera.

There's other options out there for communication without wires, but honestly, you're getting down to a basic fact: the easier it is to connect two devices, the more likely you're taking a security risk. Wireless is great if you can't afford to play puppet, but if sticking to fiber (or, heretical as it may be, copper) isn't going to impact your performance, it'll make things much safer.

[Eleazar]

I try not to relate the Matrix rules to real life. I used to and it really made my head hurt. I find that it helps to only think about the rules at most 2-3 seconds and then just to accept what the books is saying no matter how outrageous it may seem. The rules are made so that people who know absolutely nothing about computers, networking and the OSI model, hacking, cracking, etc. can use the rules. There is a very good reason why the rules sometimes make about as much sense as a Hollywood depiction of hacking. They aren't meant to be realistic. I high recommend anyone to look at Serbitar's Guide to the Matrix. He has done a great job. I personally recommend 0.9 because it gives clarifications to the rules rather than the most recent release 1.1 which changes the rules. He also lists optional and recommended House Rules which are well thought out.

[Fastball]

[Wraithshadow]

[coolgrafix]

I have to agree with everything ornot has said, though I haven't read the pertinent sections recently. I suppose the rules are written in such a way they are open to misinterpretation, but it seems the intent was not to edit signals en route to a destination, which is impossible in a wireless environment. You aren't Jamming with a Sniffer program, you're Sniffing. Jamming would require a test anyway, plus a device capable of emitting a Jamming signal (a Jammer, if you will <grin>).

The rules make sense in the context of intercepting a signal and then doing whatever you want with it (copy, edit, record, forward, etc.) but the understanding is that the original signal still goes to its original recipient unmolested. You are simply handling a digital copy of a signal.

This would be great for intercepting video feeds, recording them and then editing them (like a loop of an empty elevator) and then feeding it to a sensor somewhere after the fact.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

The rules are pretty clear on this one.

You can manipulate traffic - change it or supress it.
What you are talking about is manipulation of recording.

[Kyoto Kid]

...man sometimes I miss die gute alte Tage when a Decker had to jack in to do things like this. The Hacking rules have been streamlined, but the fact that nearly anyone can do it now makes my brain hurt.

Any remote notion of privacy, unless you're a Luddite or hermit living in the mountains or on a desert isle, is basically a thing of the past.

I still have something of an issue with the whole notion of being SINless in a wireless society where everyone needs a commlink to even get a Nukitburger® at the corner Stuffer Shack. The whole idea of being an "invisible" as runners were in the past is pretty much gone and with it some of the mystique that I liked about Shadowrun.

Think I'll go and work on the next segment of my Rhapsody in Shadow (SR3) campaign.

[laughingowl]

[coolgrafix]

[Rotbart van Dain...]

[laughingowl]

From my reading of the rules:

To override Attack Bob and change it to Attack Rob

1) Electronic Warfare + Sniffer (3) Test. (to find the wireless signal)
2) (possibly) Decrypt Signal

At this point you can see the data.

3) Computer + Edit Test (to 'block' the legitimate command).
Note: Rules are vague on what is a sucess. I treat this the same as the taping into a line. The number of sucesses is the threshold for the recieving end to notice something funny.

4) Opposed Test between his Sniffer + Hacking and the target’s Firewall + System.
Note: This test is to see if they far end will accept the new command as legitimate.


Note: Almost all of these are complex actions, so trying to overide the commands is going to also introduce delay / lag, which will also likely clue an observant controller that something is going on.

[coolgrafix]

[laughingowl]