Skillwires Abuse, Random thought Options

[Ryu]

Hey everyone... I've got a question. If you have a datajack in a cluster that's slaved to your commlink can the 'Link override the "accept no connections except from the link" so that you can use it to talk to your smartgun or hook into an external commlink?

I can see the datajack being set in a bridge mode where the data traffic is pumped directly into the 'Link and not through the cluster at all.

If the cluster is slaved, it accepts connections from the master only. What you want is routing however, not a subscription (connection), and that is currently automatic (as subscription attempts are forwarded to the master).



Some other points:
- the device rating table is a shortcut. If the shortcut is wrong, it is wrong. A device without wireless adapter is a device without signal rating.
- the datajack gets some unique abilities in the Unwired section on hacking cyberware. I would just kill the offending sentence, and work out optional wired connections (missing from Augmentation) using common sense.
- attacking a brain is possible if the brain-owner is also a SIMsense user. Blackout/Black Hammer + Psychotrope Option.
- there are earth-shattering advances in computing power and math, RL knowledge is completely invalidated.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

I still fail to see where that idea comes from. A datajack doesn't allow your enemy a free pass on all your implants or brain (infact, nothing short of a PAB unit allows anyone a pass at your brain).

A datajack provides immediate access to all cyberimplants with a direct neural interface.

[Dr Funfrock]

Bioware is explicitly not the same thing as cyberware. Cyberware is electronic and mechanical, and has a Device Rating, bioware does not. If you check p 214, BBB, you'll see that cyberware types all have a Device rating; bone lacing, being Bodyware, has a Device rating of 1.

So you missed the part where it said "Example" at the top of that column?

The entire Device Rating rule is an abstraction, meant to heavily simplify the rules for an aspect of the system that just isn't going to come up all that much. All abstractions require common sense from the GM and the players, not people pointing at a table and saying "Look, it says it here so it's RAW, you cannot argue with the RAW."

[Dragnar]

A datajack provides immediate access to all cyberimplants with a direct neural interface.

Yes, "provides". You can have a direct neural interface that way, you don't have to. It doesn't say "that happens all the time and there's nothing you can do about".
A gun provides you with a means to kill people at range, still not all people drop dead as soon as they come into sight.
A commlink provides you with wireless access to the matrix, but you can still switch it off.

[The Jake]

Bioware is explicitly not the same thing as cyberware. Cyberware is electronic and mechanical, and has a Device Rating, bioware does not. If you check p 214, BBB, you'll see that cyberware types all have a Device rating; bone lacing, being Bodyware, has a Device rating of 1.

I'd have to go through my books to find it. I don't know my understanding is that just because it has a device ID doesn't make it wireless. Likewise, I didn't believe bone lacing supports wireless.

More importantly, if you can explain to me how any red blooded male - even in a fictional universe - would allow open wireless onto a penile implant, I'm all ears. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

As for your setup: again, I'm not an IT guy, so you may need to explain it again. But unless you've physically turned the wireless off, my understanding is that there's no 100% perfect method of protecting it. Someone can always crack it. If the wireless is on, by definition isn't any attempt to break into it "hacking"?

I'm not talking about the ability to hack it so much as I am the ability to connect. Hypothetically if I slave all my cybernetics to my datajack and make it so that the datajack has wireless disabled (presuming it even has wireless, which I don't believe it does) that means the only way for someone to hack it is to connect directly (i.e. with a cable) to my datajack. The datajack itself may still be hackable in the strict sense, but if you cannot connect to it then you cannot even begin the hack.

It's like me saying I want to go racing on a freeway at 200km/hr. If both ends of the freeway (and all entrance ramps) are closed off, how can I get on it and speed?

It's a pre-existing condition that must be met in order to pull it off.

- J.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

It doesn't say "that happens all the time and there's nothing you can do about".

Actually, it does, as this is the attacker's perspective, detailed under 'Hacking Cyberware'.

[Cain]

Close, but not quite. Spoofing basically tries to tell a system that you are someone that has the right to give orders to the system, so it better listens up. There are ways to communicate that simply are impossible to spoof, however. The one I talked about is a commlink connected to your jack set to "don't accept any wireless orders, only listen to those order coming up through the cable". Even with the abstraction in the SR-rules, a basic point still remains: For any spoofing attempt to have a chance of success, there has to be a legitimate way to fake. If the link is set to ignore all wireless traffic, not even FastJack can hack it via wifi.

Oh, I can already see a way to beat that one. Computers don't distinguish incoming signals by type, they do it by port. If it comes through a wireless port, the computer thinks it must be wireless. Spoof a signal so that the port ID is changed, and you're in. I pulled a similar trick when I was setting up my laptop to receive wireless.

The entire Device Rating rule is an abstraction, meant to heavily simplify the rules for an aspect of the system that just isn't going to come up all that much. All abstractions require common sense from the GM and the players, not people pointing at a table and saying "Look, it says it here so it's RAW, you cannot argue with the RAW."

If you want to discuss house rules, then propose one. Several people here have done just that. But don't go saying: "The rules don't work that way!" when they do; and especially don't follow up that with: "The rules are great, if you use common sense and fix them!"

So, do you have an easy house rule, non-arbitrary, to determine which pieces of cyber get Device ratings and which do not?

I'm not talking about the ability to hack it so much as I am the ability to connect. Hypothetically if I slave all my cybernetics to my datajack and make it so that the datajack has wireless disabled (presuming it even has wireless, which I don't believe it does) that means the only way for someone to hack it is to connect directly (i.e. with a cable) to my datajack. The datajack itself may still be hackable in the strict sense, but if you cannot connect to it then you cannot even begin the hack.

Color me confused, but isn't that the same thing as physically turning off the wireless?

[Stahlseele]

there's this silly nanite stuff that allows to turn on wifi, even if it's been switched off by a hardwired physical switch right?
i can see it now, the market for second hand beta cyber that is in good shape but before everything became wireless will boom ^^

[The Jake]

Color me confused, but isn't that the same thing as physically turning off the wireless?

Yes, sorry - I just realised I misread your earlier post.

I thought you meant that with it disabled you can still hack it. My bad. Not enough coffee.

- J.

[KCKitsune]

there's this silly nanite stuff that allows to turn on wifi, even if it's been switched off by a hardwired physical switch right?
i can see it now, the market for second hand beta cyber that is in good shape but before everything became wireless will boom ^^

or get your gear with the wireless never installed (BBB pg 304):

If you consider a device’s wireless link to be a nuisance, you can have it removed completely with a Hardware +
Logic (8, 10 minutes) Extended Test—or simply purchase a non-wireless device in the first place (always an option, though it may get you some funny looks).

[Dr Funfrock]

If you want to discuss house rules, then propose one. Several people here have done just that. But don't go saying: "The rules don't work that way!" when they do; and especially don't follow up that with: "The rules are great, if you use common sense and fix them!"

*massive amounts of face-palm*

Do you honestly believe that everything comes down to RAW and "House Rules"? Is that actually how you run your games? Why even bother to have a GM at the table at all? You could have a computer run the scenario. The entire point of roleplaying is that there is a GM whose job is to make judgement calls when needed. Rules are a guideline, a structure, and often the rules are deliberately simplified, because the designers made the (apparently ludicrous) assumption that the people playing the game actually posessed some kind of common sense.

Do you assume that everything in the Shadowrun world is weightless because they didn't include encumbrance rules?
Do you assume that every human in the entire shadowrun world walks at precisely the same speed just because they abstracted movement rates?
Do you assume that cars can't actually fit people in them because they didn't include specific passenger amounts (or the converse, that 500 people can squeeze into a mini, just because they never explicitly stated that they can't)?

Sure, you can try your hardest to take the most literal, most useless interpretations of statements from the rules taken out of context, but why bother? All you're doing is making the game less fun for yourself. It's not "house rules" to understand what is explained clearly within the text; that certain rules don't model exactly how the reality of the setting works, they just model it closely enough for most purposes. The stated intention of device ratings is that they be a rough guide. The rules explicitly state that where required a GM should give a device more detailed stats. As with all of the rules, the application of common sense is the underlying assumption.

[The Jake]

or get your gear with the wireless never installed (BBB pg 304):

My issue stems from the singular assumption all cyberware has wireless and it is enabled by default. This is explicitly stated/inferred/whatever - I don't care.

If I really had to, I'd go through both Augmentation and the BBB and cover every single piece of cyberware and house rule whether it comes with wireless. I'm hoping it won't come to that.

On a side note, I have explained to my runners that cyberware can have the wireless disabled but by default it is enabled and can be hacked. They all know this.

What's hillarious is they haven't said they're disabling it - despite a) full knowing of the consequences and b) being IT guys who are well aware of the risk of wireless networks hahaha.

They've just assumed its disabled. Nope, I'm not going to tell them again. That's the problem with assumptions - they make an ass out of u...

- J.

[Cain]

Do you honestly believe that everything comes down to RAW and "House Rules"?

Welcome to Dumpshock.

Seriously, now, we're here to discuss the rules of Shadowrun; but if we just assume our interpretation and house rules are the correct ones, we'd have no common ground. So, when discussing a rule here, we have to start with the Rules As Written, then make our way to Rules That Work.

I quoted the RAW. You don't like it, fine. Tell us how you'd fix it. Or, say it's fine the way it is, I don't really care. But don't go waving around "common sense", because everyone's got a different version of common sense. I've lost count of the "common sense" fixes for the Matrix alone, many of which contradict each other. For example, someone earlier in this thread explained how it was "common sense" to have wireless bone lacing: it's loaded with RFID tags, so you can check positioning and alignment easily.

Fact is, the book makes it pretty clear that just about everything has a Device Rating. How you deal with that is a matter of personal choice. But it's definitely not "common sense"; someone here (a developer?) argued that wi-fi underwear was perfectly acceptable, because it'd tell the laundry machines how to wash it. Go figure.

If I really had to, I'd go through both Augmentation and the BBB and cover every single piece of cyberware and house rule whether it comes with wireless. I'm hoping it won't come to that.

You may have to. At the very least, most cyber is going to come with a RFID tag or two that holds technical specs. And each RFID tag has a Device rating of 1, making it a full-fledged node. It's not hard to remove, but it will have wi-fi capacity.

[The Jake]

Welcome to Dumpshock.

Seriously, now, we're here to discuss the rules of Shadowrun; but if we just assume our interpretation and house rules are the correct ones, we'd have no common ground. So, when discussing a rule here, we have to start with the Rules As Written, then make our way to Rules That Work.

I quoted the RAW. You don't like it, fine. Tell us how you'd fix it. Or, say it's fine the way it is, I don't really care. But don't go waving around "common sense", because everyone's got a different version of common sense. I've lost count of the "common sense" fixes for the Matrix alone, many of which contradict each other. For example, someone earlier in this thread explained how it was "common sense" to have wireless bone lacing: it's loaded with RFID tags, so you can check positioning and alignment easily.

Wearing my technical hat, that shit can be as fancy as any cybertechnician/architect/GM wants it to be.

I could argue that a penile implant to be telescoping up to any arbitrary length sine the length can be specified by the subject. Hell, make it go for ten feet and have it double up as club as well if I want. Why? Because I can choose the size. An blunt object of random size wielded counts as a bludgeoning weapon under the improvised rules. All 100% legal and by the rules.

Now if a GM did not bitch slap me for trying that, I'd bitch slap him for allowing it.

Its a fair point you make - but some stuff like emotitoys offering +6 dice to rolls that should never be happening is madness. Please don't tell me common sense doesn't enter into it there.

Fact is, the book makes it pretty clear that just about everything has a Device Rating. How you deal with that is a matter of personal choice. But it's definitely not "common sense"; someone here (a developer?) argued that wi-fi underwear was perfectly acceptable, because it'd tell the laundry machines how to wash it. Go figure.

Wifi isn't a catchall solution that solves all technical issues with a wave of a magic wand either - which is how it is being touted in many ways.

That said, if you don't like the use of the word "common sense" call it "house ruling" or "GM fiat". Whatever. I don't care.

But RAW is the start, not the end.

You may have to. At the very least, most cyber is going to come with a RFID tag or two that holds technical specs. And each RFID tag has a Device rating of 1, making it a full-fledged node. It's not hard to remove, but it will have wi-fi capacity.

The group I game with live and die by house rules. We're just shithouse at recording them unfortunately (but we generally remember them all pretty well). Our D&D 3.5 game needs a couple of notepads so we can start record dot revisions for all our changes (e.g. D&D 3.5.1). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

- J.

[Cain]

Its a fair point you make - but some stuff like emotitoys offering +6 dice to rolls that should never be happening is madness. Please don't tell me common sense doesn't enter into it there.

Emotitoys is another can of worms. But the fact is, a in-depth reading tells people it does just that. If you don't like that, fix it in your home games! Just don't assume that everyone agrees with you, or even knows that's how you feel about it. Their common sense will tell them one thing, while yours tells you something very different.

But RAW is the start, not the end.

Agreed. Here, on Dumpshock, RAW is the start of every rules discussion. We need that, in order to have common ground to discuss things. Someone discussing the literal RAW is not flaming, he's setting the grounds for the debate.

The group I game with live and die by house rules. We're just shithouse at recording them unfortunately (but we generally remember them all pretty well).

That's great! It works for you, keep it up. When I was a Missions GM, however, I had to stick to strict RAW. And some people here like the RAW, for all its flaws. If you come in assuming we'll accept all your house rules because they're "common sense", all you'll do is start a fight and cause confusion.

[The Jake]

That's great! It works for you, keep it up. When I was a Missions GM, however, I had to stick to strict RAW. And some people here like the RAW, for all its flaws. If you come in assuming we'll accept all your house rules because they're "common sense", all you'll do is start a fight and cause confusion.

Since you're a RAW guru, please verify whether or not I can use a telescoping penile implant as an improvised (clubbing) weapon. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

- J.

[toturi]

That's great! It works for you, keep it up. When I was a Missions GM, however, I had to stick to strict RAW. And some people here like the RAW, for all its flaws. If you come in assuming we'll accept all your house rules because they're "common sense", all you'll do is start a fight and cause confusion.

This advice also applies to "common" house rules too. Assuming that the house rules you have implemented is something commonly used can cause much confusion too. Some people come to the forums and post their house rules and ask for "constructive criticism", sometimes what these people are looking for is actually praise and agreement. And anything that actually criticises their house rules is negative.

Like Cain said, don't assume that we know what your house rules are. Assumptions makes our discussions more fruity than fruitful, more so than normal. Except that I am of the "RAW is the start and the end" school.

[KCKitsune]

Since you're a RAW guru, please verify whether or not I can use a telescoping penile implant as an improvised (clubbing) weapon. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

- J.

I would think that you could, but I would turn off the nerves in it otherwise... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[The Jake]

I would think that you could, but I would turn off the nerves in it otherwise... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

PAIN EDITOR ! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

- J.

[toturi]

Since you're a RAW guru, please verify whether or not I can use a telescoping penile implant as an improvised (clubbing) weapon. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

- J.

Isn't a penile implant cybernetic?

[Cain]

Since you're a RAW guru, please verify whether or not I can use a telescoping penile implant as an improvised (clubbing) weapon. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Response may be NSFW. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

But if you really want to get technical, when you're fighting in unarmed combat, the book makes no mention of which appendage you happen to be using. You can go knees, elbows, or even headbutts; why not other parts of your body? Also, I've been reading a book called "American Shaolin", which describes Iron Crotch Kung Fu. Make of that what you will. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif)

Incidentally, I'm not the RAW guru. Toturi is.

[Dragnar]

Actually, it does, as this is the attacker's perspective, detailed under 'Hacking Cyberware'.

We'll have to agree to disagree then, as even rereading that exact section I don't see how the provided DNI-access is even remotely implied as being unavoidable or impossible to disable. It just states the usual occurence of the datajack of joe normal-no-idea-of-system-security on the streets.

[RedeemerofOgar]

More importantly, if you can explain to me how any red blooded male - even in a fictional universe - would allow open wireless onto a penile implant, I'm all ears. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Long-distance blowjobs from your distant girlfriend, of course! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Rotbart van Dain...]

We'll have to agree to disagree then, as even rereading that exact section I don't see how the provided DNI-access is even remotely implied as being unavoidable or impossible to disable.

The problem is that it invents a whole new attack vector for datajacks only that has no way of fixing except removing DNI from implants. Which, frankly, isn't an option, so datajacks are neither.

[Ryu]

We'll have to agree to disagree then, as even rereading that exact section I don't see how the provided DNI-access is even remotely implied as being unavoidable or impossible to disable. It just states the usual occurence of the datajack of joe normal-no-idea-of-system-security on the streets.

The critical information from "hacking cyberware" is not that you can access all other implants from the datajack, but that this access is a question of DNI.

The former SOTA was datajack--DNI-> brain, datajack--wires->other implants. Now it´s datajack--DNI->other implants.

Consequence: DNI is now a biological implant network, instead of a dedicated brain-implant connection. That state is a believable technological development, but suffers from the lack of a DNI definition (main book: DNI = brain-implant, optional wires). The easiest fix is just cutting the sentence that gives datajacks access to DNI devices. You now have a consistent state of DNI tech, but also unhackable implants.