![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 ![]() |
I'm curious to how my view will hold up to the scrutiny of dumpshockers. I'd like to get this hammered out, as it seems the consensus of dumpshock right now is contrary to my own, so hopefully I can get some good discussion going about this.
There are 2 modes agents can operate in. SR4, 227"Agents can be loaded into your persona like other programs (taking a Complex Action), allowing the agent to accompany you to any nodes you access. Agents can also access other nodes independently if instructed to and if they either have the passcodes or are carrying an Exploit program and can hack their own way in (as independent icons)." My interpretation of the rules is that: When loaded into your persona, the agent is present in nodes that you are present in, and is unable to go anywhere without your icon going first. The agent utilizes the response of your commlink. This method is PA in the poll. When operating independatly, the agent is able to act like a unique persona, without any trail leading back to your commlink. The agent has whatever programs it brought with it, and must access/exploit nodes in order to use them. It uses the response of the node it is present on. This includes agent/ic spawned by a node itself, as they aren't running via any persona. This method is IA in the poll. My reasons: SR4, 217-218. "When you are accessing a node, you may set your Analyze program to automatically scan and detect other users/icons on that node with a Simple Action. A successful scan will be reported to you. The program will maintain that task for as long as you are on that node or until you kill that process." This shows that accessing a node and being on a node are the same thing. SR4, 220. "If you don’t want to maintain a connection to that node, you can run a Browse-equipped agent (p. 228) instead." This shows that agents are able to run without any connection back to your commlink. You can run a browse program on a node with an open connection that can be traced to you. Or, you can send an agent to do it, with no data trail because its operating independantly of you. If an agent operating independatly has no connection to your commlink, then it obviously is not operating utilizing your commlinks hardware. This is why an agent operating remotely utilizes the response of the node its persona is in. Because its not connected to your commlink in any way. When you are running them off your persona, you can utilize your commlink's stats, as there is an open connection, between your persona and your commlink. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 ![]() |
Not enough options.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#3
|
|
Prime Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 ![]() |
My interpretation doesn't seem to be in your Poll.
PA runs off the Response of your commlink. IA runs off the Response of whatever node it happens to be running from. This in turn may or may not be your Commlink. So if anything, I'd like a new poll. One where I could actually answer it. As I interpret it, an independent Agent is running just like a Hacker is - they have a source node (which limits them with its response) and then they have whatever nodes they happen to be interacting with (which don't). -Frank |
|
|
![]()
Post
#4
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,246 Joined: 8-June 07 Member No.: 11,869 ![]() |
I like Frank's interpretation because that means I can clean out a commlink store, copy my agent onto each of them (I have the source code since I wrote the agent program, so the copies are free). Then I can launch a horde of hundreds of agents to pwn any system I want. With no system degradation, even the best IC in the world will be wiped out in one round. Unless they know that trick and have thousands of agents running in their system...hmmm, this could get silly. When is SR5 coming out again?
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#5
|
|||
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 410 Joined: 5-April 07 From: Vancouver, BC Member No.: 11,383 ![]() |
Problem is that each would have to hack through the firewall individually. So even if they all managed to get through it porbably wouldn't be at once and the horde of IC on the other side would crush them as they straggled through. |
||
|
|||
![]()
Post
#6
|
|||
Prime Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 ![]() |
That's my interpretation. I call this the "Agent Smith Problem" and I really haven't seen an adequate answer to it anywhere. Fundamentally defenses such as Firewalls are abstract, while attacks such as Distributed Denial of Service are not abstracted. So the fact that there is absolutely nothing stopping you from potentially having dozens or thousands of distinct zombie PCs out there invoking your dark will in distributed fashion means that the interaction is fundamentally flawed. I honestly can't figure out any reason why you couldn't order multiple commlinks loaded with agents to make an attack against a single target. And since the basic book insists on modelling that as two separate attackers (or five, or over nine thousand), it seems that virtually any defenses are by simple numeric probabilties going to eventually fall to an attack in the first round. --- My own campaigns work at all because of a gentleman's agreement where none of the teams' hackers go ape shit with Agents and then they still have challenges. There are not any meaningful restrictions on that sort of behavior in the basic book. Nor can there be with the way Matrix interaction is defined. -Frank |
||
|
|||
![]()
Post
#7
|
|
Target ![]() Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 25-July 07 Member No.: 12,354 ![]() |
My personal method of dealing with the Agent Smith problem is to abstract the actions of agents. If you have one or one hundred, you only roll & act once for any single activity (generally the one with the highest bonus), as if there were only a single agent; and having greater numbers of agents only gives the ability to multitask & it's harder to stamp them out. As an extra element, agents cannot provide teamwork benefits to anyone or anything in hacking.
The idea is that having multiple copies of a graphing calculator running doesn't make the graph any more awesome, and the rating for the program/agent should already take into account how much processing power they take up...which is a sufficiently large number within a single commlink that stacking them doesn't give an appreciable benefit (other than holding more programs before losing response). |
|
|
![]()
Post
#8
|
|
Shadow Cartographer ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 ![]() |
Agreed. There are not enough options. My own interpretation is in line with Frank's. I see no sensible reason why an agent can run happily from your commlink, operating on a remote node, fighting in cybercombat, running exploits, stealth and all that jazz, but only if a human is sitting next to it holding its hand. The "independently" that Tarantula has fixed on refers, I believe, to when the agent is loaded onto a different node. That's not compulsory to be present in another node, as demonstrated by the fact that agents can do this when accompanied by your persona and by the fact that agents can be present in multiple nodes which would screw the whole theory.
It also doesn't make much sense in terms of what we know of the Matrix. Being present in a node in VR represents a connection and interaction with that node. I don't think that can be disputed. So this idea would mean Mr. Corp Exec can't have a personal assistant that goes off and books flights, arranges meetings, downloads SIMs for me, etc. unless I either he goes with it to hold its hand, or everytime his (along with everyone else's) program wants to go off and book a flight, it has to actually cease running on his commlink, upload itself onto a remote system that is willing to run it, do what it wants to do and then reverse the procedure. This makes little sense from security and efficiency points of view on both the execs and the airports side. And it also brings us back to the issue of working with multiple nodes, again. The Agent Smith problem would not be the first loophole that has crept into the 4th edition rules. (*cough* blood spirits *cough* summoning loop *cough*), so I think the existence of a potential problem being a consequence of what the rules say is not really an argument that the rules didn't say that. The way that I have dealt with the Agent Smith problem is part fluff and part rules. Firstly, on the corp side, I have made long arguments elsewhere as to why corps wouldn't field agent armies. On the side of the hacker, there is also the expense, but more particularly the point that stealth is almost always critically important to the hacker and it is the one thing that Agent Smith army cannot do. Often, it is important that the victim does not know that they have been compromised. There are also strong options that a target system can use when it knows it is being attacked. For a start it can sever outside connections or shut down. Either one of which, by RAW, it can do before the ASA can do anything useful; and both of which have no counter. More so than this, the ASA is massively detectable, massively traceable. You can spend two months sneaking round the city and planting commlinks in dustbins all set to launch their attack on midnight of the 31st. You're likely to be found. You've probably gained nothing other than some mild interference in the target business (if it doesn't immediately use a different Matrix access point, that is) and in return catapulted yourself to the top of Lone Star's wanted list. Of course a big corp might not worry about Lone Star, but now we're into the realm of politics and counterstrikes and corp war. There are other counters that a GM can pass under RAW. For example, you can treat a massive agent attack on a node as a teamwork test (which it really is) in which case the number of agents that can work together is limited by their rating. You could also argue that given the agents are all clones of each other, they're not going to be able to help each other very much: "Hey - try this exploit." "Wow - that's just what I was thinking of trying!" It's also easy enough for nodes in the Matrix to operate on some basic rules and say - "hey, I have an army marching through here, lets alert someone or throttle this traffic". The Matrix was designed to be smart and to resist the sort of virus attacks that devastated the world. It's most emphatically not the Internet of today. And the RAW allow nodes this sort of intelligence so you can do it without problem. I wrote a fluff piece on the Matrix a long time ago here which outlines some fluff justifications for this sort of resiliance towards the end. If this poll were to be valid, it would need more options. As it is, it doesn't represent the range of viewpoints here on Dumpshock. We've already had quite a lot of these in the previous (long) thread on this. Polls aren't good for complex arguments like this, because people frequently vote and then read the following thread and can't change their mind. If you (Tarantula) are trying to sum up our previous debate on this and find out who "won" this poll wont really give you that. EDIT: I null voted. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#9
|
|
Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,009 Joined: 25-September 06 From: Paris, France Member No.: 9,466 ![]() |
I go with the 1st one. There's nothing proving that it's right but contrary to what some people say, it can be explained and is consistent enough.
But that's an issue I'd like to see officially settled. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#10
|
|
panda! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 ![]() |
i think knasser covered most of the bases.
deploying a agent smith attack would be like a virtual 9/11. one would have the target, corp court grid overwatch division, and maybe some others to, descending on the event in short order. its like massing the army at a border. its just not something you do without being noticed. hell, isnt the one thing that keeps the corps in line the omega order? or basically a kind of corp MAD scenario? what would be the virtual equivalent? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#11
|
|||
Shadow Cartographer ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 ![]() |
Basically, once the Agent Smith Army is noticed, it's very easy for any nodes involved to just dump the lot of them whilst alerting authorities. With a large number of agents even a casual user just passing through is going to notice them. In Shadowrun, as in the real world, one's power is defined not by what one is capable of, but by one's ability to take the consquences. But I still maintain that the chief disadvantage of them is not their vulnerability to serious action (node shutdowns, etc). but that an infiltration loses value if the enemy knows you've been infiltrated. |
||
|
|||
![]()
Post
#12
|
|
panda! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 ![]() |
yep, but then i think frank argues it as a pranksters weapon rather then a shadowrunners weapon. but then if matrix crimes where handled sharia style, i would think a lot of kids where a lot more careful...
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#13
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 254 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,768 ![]() |
I don't see anything "fundamentally flawed" here. Yeah, making DDoS attacks is possible. That's realistic. It's also a pretty unfeasible tactic in the context of most Shadowrun games, which is what the rules concern themselves with.
Your run-of-the-mill spam, botnets, and the like have been a problem for decades in 2070. Dealing with them in everyday life has been abstracted away by the rules. Using them as weapons in a hack probably has, too - with a little imagination, you could say that's part of what the "slow and sure" hacking rules are supposed to represent, for example. And if you counter that with "the rules shouldn't require you to have an imagination", go find another hobby :D. What you're describing is a flood of thousands of agents, each running from its own dedicated commlink. A commlink capable of running the sort of agent a PC hacker is likely to employ will cost a couple thousand nuyen, at the very least. Want to send nine thousand "Agent Smiths"? Got eighteen million lying around? And if the target in question has made itself impervious from external assault by the simple expedient of not being online, how do you carry 9000 commlinks into a place like that? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#14
|
|||
panda! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 ![]() |
best response i have seen on this page in ages :love: |
||
|
|||
![]()
Post
#15
|
|
Target ![]() Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 25-July 07 Member No.: 12,354 ![]() |
Alright, so using over nine thousand agents will get you too easily noticed and you have to deal with the whole MAD scenario. What if you don't use that many, and instead use half a dozen copy-pasted agents using teamwork. You can simply have a good commlink connected to whatever system you want protected, continually scanning the databases for any hackers, just buying hits and auto-detecting intruders in less than a combat turn. The same goes for any kind of nonopposed Matrix test, as you don't need to use a hundred agents when a dozen will make you unstoppable.
Sure, you'll be auto-detected, but the only real way to stop you once you're found is to shut down the system, and that alone will cause problems. And if MAD is initiated from a dozen agents, then the world is entirely too unstable. At that scale, how can any corp function without having everything be an isolated island where data's transferred by optical disk ferried by a heavily guarded messenger goon? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#16
|
|||
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 160 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 282 ![]() |
Yes. There's 10 listed in the BBB who can drop 18 mil on "I win the Matrix" and write it off as business lunch. Taking your servers offline to defend against DDoS, means you lose anyway |
||
|
|||
![]()
Post
#17
|
|||||
panda! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 ![]() |
only if thats the objective in the first place. |
||||
|
|||||
![]()
Post
#18
|
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 ![]() |
That is the only objective of DoS.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#19
|
|
panda! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 ![]() |
that may be. but it sounded like it was a general problem of the matrix rules...
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#20
|
|||
Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 ![]() |
Agents aren't able to run "from" a commlink. SR4, 227"Agents can be loaded into your persona like other programs (taking a Complex Action), allowing the agent to accompany you to any nodes you access. Agents can also access other nodes independently if instructed to and if they either have the passcodes or are carrying an Exploit program and can hack their own way in (as independent icons)." These are the only methods agents can run in. From a persona, or as an independant entity. As an independant entity, they do not have a connection to your commlink, as per this quote. SR4, 220. "If you don’t want to maintain a connection to that node, you can run a Browse-equipped agent (p. 228) instead." When an agent is in your persona, it tracks to your commlink, and utilizes your commlinks response. When an agent is independant, it uses the response of the node it is in. The rules do not say agents work as hackers do in the matrix. It says that they have 2 methods of working. By being loaded in a persona, or by being independant. Each has its benefits and drawbacks. There is no third "source node" mode. |
||
|
|||
![]()
Post
#21
|
|||
Immoral Elf ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 ![]() |
Your Commlink is a node. |
||
|
|||
![]()
Post
#22
|
|||||||||
Shadow Cartographer ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 ![]() |
This is a valid question - what about the less extreme cases? The general answer, if you crunch the numbers is that you get the same situation in a less extreme way. If you use nine agents, you can achieve more - but you've given the opposition nine chances to notice you. In situations where you don't mind about being noticed, then you do better. But I think these situations are rare. The counters that a target system has to the Agent Army are 100% effective and whilst forcing a denial of service on a target system is thus possible, it brings us back to the aims of the hacker. It wont get you the information that you want and it's a lot of work to conceal who is behind all these agents. It will also likely take only a few minutes for the authorities to deal with the attack, also, whether that's some sort of general police "Matrix division" or more likely, you're standing contract for security with Renraku. The teamwork rules cap the number of extra dice by the skill of those involved, so the average agent (rating 3) can at most get three extra dice on a test. This is very much assuming that the GM allows identical agent programs to use the team work rules. They do, after all, have identical knowledge and techniques. You run the same program eight times, you get the same results eight times. ;) At any rate, I certainly don't think you can apply it to Stealth rolls which is the most important. If you slavishly allow teamwork rolls for everything, then you're going to get forty-strong Shadowrunning teams strolling invisibly through corporate compounds as they throw in Infiltration dice to each other. :) In any Agent vs. Agent situation, if we're talking mercenary hackers, then the corp can throw more at the hacker than the hacker can throw at the corp. But hackers don't use the mass attack because it's risk without gain, and the corp's don't use swarms of agents because it's expensive and its inefficient. Good system design is a more effective way of ensuring security. As to this:
Tarantula - what good is it to hold a poll and deliberately exclude from the options an opinion that many of us hold? What purpose is this poll intended to serve? And given that we just had a four page thread of you telling us we're wrong, it's hardly as if you excluded our interpretation accidentally. When you say:
The rules nowhere use the words that "[agents] have 2 methods of working." Those are your words indicating your intepretation. It says that they can run on your commlink and they can be loaded onto other nodes and run from there. The latter is what I think is meant by "independent." It is independent from your commlink. I don't agree that it means it has to load itself onto another system just to interact with another node. That just doesn't make sense. Tarantula - You're going to have to accept that a lot of other people disagree with you. |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
![]()
Post
#23
|
|
Target ![]() Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 25-July 07 Member No.: 12,354 ![]() |
And what about the technique of getting a high-grade commlink loaded with half a dozen agents using Analyze on their designated system? It's a cheap purchase for any corp to have each agent to be different, and so teamwork is even more likely to work and thus you will auto-detect any and every hacker who works on his own; making the whole concept of covert hacking pointless. I don't see how this can be reconcilled without house rules, and thus my choice of simply hand-waving multiple agents into nonexistance for action resolution.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#24
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 286 Joined: 5-September 05 Member No.: 7,688 ![]() |
My house-rule reply to the "Agent Smith Problem:"
Agents are not treated as a simple program. In fact, they require special hardware that is included in the price of the purchase (usually a small box, no larger than a commlink). Corporations can buy much bigger boxes that they stick somewhere in their server farm (probably contains multiple high-quality agents). The net result, of course, is that agents are treated as independent entities that don't have fluctuating stats, and if you want more than one, you just have to fork over the money. Corps got it, so they can afford to run dozens of agents (balanced by the fact that they have quite a few more nodes in their flock to tend) but players are usually strapped for cash. The most agents I'd like to see (in terms of style and avoiding massive dice-induced headaches) in one hacker's hands would be 2-3. By their nature, agents require some serious processing power, and the idea of simply making copies ad infinitum until one side or another buckles seems to me to gut the more subtle aspects of the hacking rules. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#25
|
|||||
Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 ![]() |
For the third time. SR4, 227"Agents can be loaded into your persona like other programs (taking a Complex Action), allowing the agent to accompany you to any nodes you access. Agents can also access other nodes independently if instructed to and if they either have the passcodes or are carrying an Exploit program and can hack their own way in (as independent icons)." The first sentence, "Agents can be loaded into your persona like other programs (taking a Complex Action), allowing the agent to accompany you to any nodes you access." Is what allows agents to be run from a persona like any other program. The second sentence, "Agents can also access other nodes independently if instructed to and if they either have the passcodes or are carrying an Exploit program and can hack their own way in (as independent icons)." Is what allows an agent to run independently. Since no other methods of agents running are listed, those are the only two.
No. It says that can be loaded into a persona, or access other nodes independently. The latter is what is meant by independent, because they state that "agents can also access other nodes indepedently". SR4, 217-218. "When you are accessing a node, you may set your Analyze program to automatically scan and detect other users/icons on that node with a Simple Action. A successful scan will be reported to you. The program will maintain that task for as long as you are on that node or until you kill that process." This paragraph uses accessing a ndoe and being on a node interchangably. If an agent is accessing a node, it is on that node, and vice versa. SR4, 220. "If you don’t want to maintain a connection to that node, you can run a Browse-equipped agent (p. 228) instead." This shows that agents operating independently are not connected to your commlink. So, how can they be utilizing your commlink's response is there is absolutely no data passing between your commlink and the agent? I will agree that yes, you can have an independent agent running on your commlink, and uzing the commlinks response, however, as soon as that agent moves to a different node (whether it connects, is present in multiple nodes, etc) then its persona in that node uses that nodes response. |
||||
|
|||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th September 2025 - 10:59 PM |
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.