Protecting drone nodes with agents Options

[Aaron]

Buying program options for every program is tedious [Do you get your Databomb with Pavlov or Optimization... decisions, decisions!] but they work pretty well. Just a thought to add to your list of ideas, sir!

Pavlov, definitely. "Hello, daddy, hello mom, I'm your d- d- d- d- d- ... DATA BOMB!"

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Pavlov, definitely. "Hello, daddy, hello mom, I'm your d- d- d- d- d- ... DATA BOMB!"

For Data Bombs, Pavlov is definitely my favorite...

[DuctShuiTengu]

If this is your first account here Tengu, then congratulations and welcome.

Back to the topic at hand. I meant what I said litterally. The poster I was responding to said it was metagaming. I say it's not, for the reasons myself and other people have stated.

However, to answer your point, yes, I'm sure you could set up a really bitznitchy script that turns itself on and off at "random" intervals, in a pattern that only you (and anyone else who has ever take a standardized test before) can figure out. If I act before everyone else... wait, upon re-reading your example, you appear to be agreeing with me. Faster is faster. If you can shoot the other guy before he can shoot you, then you can give your drone an order then shut the wireless off.

Thanks for the welcome. And sorry, I missed the change in users between your question of why it was/could be metagaming and the original suggestion.

Whether it's metagaming or not depends on how it's being handled. A rigger with quick reflexes on these things being able to shut down their drone's wireless before a hacker can get in is fine, roughly equivalent to the prior example of a faster gunslinger being able to shoot the other guy before they can shoot you. If they're fast enough, they might even be able to do that with a reasonable degree of consistancy when the Drone's wireless comes back up to request new orders (though I'd expect that after a couple of iterations of this, the hacker is going to be finding a way to make sure that their slowness in reaching for the enter key isn't going to continue to remain a factor). The problem shows up if the rigger starts trying to use this to insist that there's only a wireless connection during their action. (For a rough parallel here: imagine a gunfight where one of the participants tries to get the maximum benefits from cover while recieving none of the penalties for it by walking from one bit of cover to another and firing on their action - since they started and ended their action behind full cover, their opponents have to deal with that when attempting to shoot back, but since they were out in the open when they actually shot at them, they get none of the associated penalties.)

[Heath Robinson]

Do you get your Databomb with Pavlov or Optimization... decisions, decisions!

I say "is too much to ask for both?"

[Zaranthan]

The dog brain follows the orders. If the interval being 6sec bothers you change it to 10, 15, or whatever you like. I try to use multiples of six seconds to make it simpler to have it turn back on. You could also tell it to turn back on after 6 increments of a variable with +1 per long burst fired, +2 per 10 rounds of full auto fired, +1 per 2sec spent aiming and bog it down as much as you like. I've used the timed-wireless-off before and its not for the meek of heart. Imagine if your favorite honey comes out of a club panicking from a firefight and your drone kills her dead as shit because you had no way to tell it to stop.

And yes, I can twiddle my thumbs in combat as my drone's dog brain acts. I spend a lot of time along with the multiprocessing echo doing nothing but updating the tactical AR and e-sensing opponents thankyouverymuch. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

The issue isn't with your actions as described, it's with the idea that you can game the initiative system to be immune to hacking. The world doesn't work like that in-character.

Also, switching wireless on and off, opening and closing connections, giving orders, and shooting things all take actions. Don't have my books with me, so I'm going from memory here:

Switch wireless: simple
Connect to device w/passcode: simple
Give orders: simple
Gunnery: complex

So, let's take an ideal situation. You're sending the drone in to shoot up some guards. You're connected, you have set up action scripts for the drone to follow, and you're in cold sim VR.

Turn 1, IP 1: You tell the drone to "kill wireless, shoot guard, reopen wireless." Drone switches off its wireless (a simple action) and rolls into position (since it can't shoot this pass).
T1 IP2: Drone fills a guard with lead. You twiddle your thumbs, because the drone is cut off.
T2 IP1: Drone switches on its wireless, and waits for orders. You tell the drone to run silent again and shoot the other guard.
T2 IP2: Drone cuts wireless, and takes aim, because it can't shoot this pass. You're back to twiddling.
T3 IP1: Drone shoots. Your knuckles are getting sore.
T3 IP2: Drone comes online again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

You're shooting twice per three turns, and a non-brain-dead hacker can just hold his action to spoof the drone on T2 IP1, when it's waiting for orders. Plus, the drone must be in active mode, because you have to connect to it, so the spider doesn't even have to FIND the node. Your guard dog is saying "hi" to everything.

[crizh]

Drones are, to some extent, similar to Spirits in this regard. You could identify a series of targets that you want eliminated and leave the drone to get on with it while it's wireless is disabled.

However, if the situation changes whilst it is incommunicado it's up to the dog-brain to cope with it. This is bad.

In addition it occurs to me that whilst it is radio silent the drone cannot contribute or benefit from a Tacnet. That's a major, major downside in my opinion.

I've pursued this sort of thinking before in another thread where I postulated that using an Agent to manage a dual-channel comm's approach, where two inter-leaved comm's channels were alternately dropped and re-encrypted, would create a system that could not be cracked under any set of circumstances. It was never possible to decrypt a channel faster than it was re-enrypted.

I was eventually persuaded that this was a bad approach not because it didn't work but because it did.

What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander and un-crackable systems suck all the fun out of Shadowrun.

For this same reason I am leery of actually using Strong Node Encryption in play even though it is perfectly legal according to Unwired.

I opt instead to voluntarily just use Strong File Encryption and Dynamic Signals Encryption although it should be noted that I tend to ignore the 'awareness' restriction on Dynamic Encryption because it's stupid.

[Daishi]

I'm still getting up to speed on the SR4 matrix rules, but my instinct would be to stick a nexus loaded with IC in your van and have them patrol your drone network. I'll have to see if that's useful under the rules, but it seems like something that would match the fluff.

[Wasabi]

If you want to prevent intrusion tell the drones what to do then instruct an agent inside it to turn off the wireless

Emphasis mine.

Immune to hacking? Yeah, while wireless is off.
Is wireless off a disadvantage in many ways? Yes.

If my hacker is facing a Submerged TM I'll happily tell an agent to switch off wireless for X amount of time and then let the agent use ITS action to turn it back on. I instruct the Agent then to do *whatever* until the drone is back on the Tacnet/TAN.
I never stated it was a win button, merely that while wireless is off wireless cant be used to hack the drone. [and Sprites without a matrix connection disappear as do intruding icons as they visit dumpshock-land involuntarily.]

[crizh]

Immune to hacking? Yeah, while wireless is off.

Not necessarily.

[Wasabi]

True, a TM shapechanged into an african swallow under the movement power of an air spirit and using the Skinlink echo could, yes, potentially catch a rotodrone and hack in.

[But in all seriousness, we're talking wireless here and if someone can find a way around using wireless more power to them. No plan is foolproof.]

[crizh]

Capsule rounds.

Activator Nanites.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I was eventually persuaded that this was a bad approach not because it didn't work but because it did.

What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander and un-crackable systems suck all the fun out of Shadowrun.

This being the crux of avoiding the pursuit of invincibility on the network...

[Telion]

if you can't break into the network, why not render it useless and jam it. Obviously there's counter measures, but an invincible network may not have funded that form of defense.

It also seems to the double com link idea, you could locate each signal separately then attempt to take down the encryption with the help of others.
1 hacker manages to break the encryption, sends key to others in 1 round. They gain rights and then deal with encyption process again.
Since they already have an account they can shut down the encryption and begin on the rest of the network. This being without IC or spider or anything else that could feasibly go wrong.

[crizh]

It also seems to the double com link idea, you could locate each signal separately then attempt to take down the encryption with the help of others.
1 hacker manages to break the encryption, sends key to others in 1 round. They gain rights and then deal with encyption process again.
Since they already have an account they can shut down the encryption and begin on the rest of the network. This being without IC or spider or anything else that could feasibly go wrong.

I think you are talking about my dual-channel example. Under the assumption that such is the case.

No.

Each channel is re-encrypted at least once every combat turn.

The cryptanalysis action is an extended test with a minimum interval of one combat turn. By the time you get to roll, and you are going to need twelve hits, the scheme you are trying to crack is using different keys and all your effort is wasted.

It is a fundamental problem with the encryption action being faster to perform than the decryption action.

[Telion]

I was, and you are correct. I was just trying to grasp how you were going about it and missed that it was base 1 combat turn instead of a pass for decryption.
Now I know that you can also rush it and make it 1/2 a combat turn with greater risk, but you can swap links and re-encrypt pretty swiftly as well, especially if you have agents assigned to perform that operation.