Hacker cannot Hack, Has no commlink, will not travel Options

[Sengir]

How is this different than previous editions of SR where all the REALLY secure servers had no connection to the Matrix at all? Where you had to send in a hacker to personally interface with the server to do any hacking?

Besides the fact that this server would be connected to the Matrix while still unhackable over that connection?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Besides the fact that this server would be connected to the Matrix while still unhackable over that connection?

Why would it need to be connected? I see no reason why that need be a fact...

Keep the Faith

[Heath Robinson]

Why would it need to be connected? I see no reason why that need be a fact...

Keep the Faith

The question was "How is this different than previous editions of SR where all the REALLY secure servers had no connection to the Matrix at all?" The answer must provide a difference. You come in and talk about the difference not needing to be fact.

Edit: change of tone

Edit2:

Further information is now available here.

Old situation: Being off the matrix makes you impossible to hack remotely
New situation: Being off the matrix makes you impossible to hack remotely, You can be on the matrix and be impossible to hack

The request: Difference from the Old situation
The response: You can be on the matrix and be impossible to hack

You question the necessity of (to demonstrate the difference): Server in question being connected
What you can't do without a connection: Be on the matrix

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

If the network wasn't connected then it'd be exactly the same as an isolated network, which means that there wouldn't be a difference. The question was "How is this different than previous editions of SR where all the REALLY secure servers had no connection to the Matrix at all?" The answer must provide a difference. You come in and start babbling on about THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE not needing to be fact.

I think I'm beginning to understand how it is that we could never seem to get through to each other in that other thread.

Wait... What?

Why are you ranting at me here...

You could have two scenarios... It will either be one or the other of course... Connected or not...

1. The server could be connected and secured such that the hacking attempt was ludicrous, but still possible, though unlikely without having IC and Spiders swarming all over the hacker...

2. The System is not connected to the Matrix at ALL, which would require a physical penetration...

The quote I was replying to was from Sengir, Replying to Catadmin, who was replying to Karmainferno:

(KarmaInferno @ Apr 24 2010, 07:23 PM)
How is this different than previous editions of SR where all the REALLY secure servers had no connection to the Matrix at all? Where you had to send in a hacker to personally interface with the server to do any hacking?

From Catadmin: Beside the fact that you don't have to carry around 15 lbs of deck to do it? @=)
It's not, really.

From Sengir: Besides the fact that this server would be connected to the Matrix while still unhackable over that connection?

I wanted to know why it WOULD (Need) BE CONNECTED AS FACT... it does not have to be connected at all... and that is the only FACT there was... could it be connected... YES, is it a FACT THAT IT MUST BE CONNECTED... NO...

Which was why I was curious why it had to be a fact... It does not have to be you know... or maybe you don't...

Really, Heath Robinson... you should probably cut down on the caffeine... I am not arguing about the difference not needing to be a fact... I was wondering why Sengir thought that it needed be fact...

Keep the Faith

[Heath Robinson]

I wanted to know why it WOULD (Need) BE CONNECTED AS FACT... it does not have to be connected at all... and that is the only FACT there was... could it be connected... YES, is it a FACT THAT IT MUST BE CONNECTED... NO...

Which was why I was curious why it had to be a fact... It does not have to be you know... or maybe you don't...

KarmaInferno asked for the difference between the old situation and the new situation. That difference is "you can be connected to the matrix and still be unhackable". You asked why being connected was needed as part of the answer when being connected is the entirety of the answer.


For what it might be worth, I do apologise for the rant. I tried, after I made the post, to turn it into a response that was more informative and less provocative. Posting emotional responses is cathartic, but it does not serve to maximise the S/N ratio.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

KarmaInferno asked for the difference between the old situation and the new situation. That difference is "you can be connected to the matrix and still be unhackable". You asked why being connected was needed as part of the answer when being connected is the entirety of the answer.

For what it might be worth, I do apologise for the rant. I tried, after I made the post, to turn it into a response that was more informative and less provocative. Posting emotional responses is cathartic, but it does not serve to maximise the S/N ratio.

Rant aside, No offense by the way, there is no real difference between the previous editions and now... In previous editions you had systems attached to the matrix and ones that were not... the ones that were could still have been deemed relatively unhackable, just like now... the biggest difference, as Catadmin pointed out, to hacking into a remote system not connected to the matrx is that you no longer have to lug around a piece of hacking equipment that weighed in at 15 pounds (or whatever)...

I was just curious why Sengir's FACT was that it could be connected to the matrix was any different than previous editions... specifically that the System could be linked into the matirix, and still remain relatively unhackable... there really is no difference at all, as that was a standard assumption in previous editions as well... you could either be connected and relatively unhackable, or be totally unhackable in the matrix by not being hooked up...

No Big Deals either way, of course, I was just curious why he chose to make the statement is all...

Keep the Faith

[Yerameyahu]

Ditto to above. I have no idea what just happened, but it's *really* simple: anything can be 'unhackable', on- or offline. Anything on the Matrix is a remote hacking target target, but it can have defenses (duh); anything off the Matrix is a non-remote hacking target, and it can have other defenses. It works fine.

[Sengir]

KarmaInferno asked for the difference between the old situation and the new situation. That difference is "you can be connected to the matrix and still be unhackable". You asked why being connected was needed as part of the answer when being connected is the entirety of the answer.

This.

Invest 987928491092843192 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) into a cutting-edge firewall? Nah, just redirect the connection and the server becomes unhackable because computer magic does not work over routers (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

Except it does.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Except it does.

Indeed, once you have hacked the routed connection, you can return to the subscribed node (that was slaved to something else) that you need, but were diverted from, in the first place...

Keep the Faith

[Sengir]

Except it does.

Except with the wording in the 4A book, which is the whole point of this thread: Is this an intentional change or just a minor oversight by CGL?

[Darkeus]

Except with the wording in the 4A book, which is the whole point of this thread: Is this an intentional change or just a minor oversight by CGL?

No matter what it says in 4A, in Unwired it says:

Page 54, Unwired

"If for any reason a node or group
of nodes is dropped from a network, the
remaining available nodes simply route
around the gap, making the network
self-healing."

Point blank, even if you remove the nodes your being routed through, the network will make up for this and reroute you before you can say megapulse.

That is the reason they made the Matrix like it is anyway. Remember, avoid another crash, ability to isolate infected networks, sustainability if part of the network goes down...

4A is not the end all be all of Matrix rules. In fact, the damn book tells you to refer to Unwired... Good advice...

[Red-ROM]

I think the question here was:

can you hack over routers, or do you need to be in "mutual signal range"

i believe HR argued that its the latter

[Darkeus]

I think the question here was:

can you hack over routers, or do you need to be in "mutual signal range"

i believe HR argued that its the latter

I think that passage makes it obvious, of course you can. The paragraphs before that one explains it well. If you are in Node A and you want to access Node B (For whatever reason) then you are routed to Node B automatically, any node can act as a router. Right in the rules in Unwired.

If I am trying to hack a secured server that is offline then I need to get into "mutual signal range". I don't think that people realize that just because a node is off the Matrix that it can still be hacked. The secure node probably interacts with the nodes in the building and if not, well you gotta direct connect wired or get closer.

Remember, hackers are supposed to be mobile this edition. If the node is connected in someway to the matrix then it can be hacked from anywhere. If it is not readily available from the matrix then adjust plan accordingly.

Sounds simple to me...

[Yerameyahu]

Indeed. It's insane to suggest that you can't hack over routers, and I don't think the RAW even says it. You can misinterpret the rules, maybe, but it only breaks the game to do so. *shrug* Why bother?

[Heath Robinson]

Indeed. It's insane to suggest that you can't hack over routers, and I don't think the RAW even says it. You can misinterpret the rules, maybe, but it only breaks the game to do so. *shrug* Why bother?

I'm not sure how it's possible to misinterpret the statement "In order to hack a node, you must either be within mutual Signal range of the target node’s device or have an open subscription with the node through the Matrix." That doesn't seem like a statement that is open to interpretation.


Since having a subscription requires an account (hacked or otherwise), you can't hack over routers.

[Blade]

I guess you're right. They've deliberately written this and worded it exactly this way so that the game would be broken. That's the only rational explanation I can see.

[Eratosthenes]

If the target is in hidden mode, then you need to be in mutual signal range and find it. It's not accepting Matrix traffic, so you have to hack it directly.

If it's not in hidden mode, then you just need to be able to access it via the Matrix (i.e. it can't be isolated from the Matrix, in a static zone, etc.) It is accepting Matrix traffic, so you can attempt to hack it via any node it can access. Routers, as you put it.

[Yerameyahu]

Even in hidden mode, the node *could* certainly be accepting connections from a whitelist. You just have to find one of *those* to get in.
You're right, of course, that it could be hidden and also connected to nothing else. If it has a Signal, that's 'direct radio connection' time.
It's only when a node is fully *off* the Matrix (no Signal radio at all, 'intranet' LAN only) that you absolutely have to use a (local) wired connection.

Heath, I just can't see willfully assuming the rules are intended to be stupid, when they work just fine if you let them.

[Eratosthenes]

Even in hidden mode, the node *could* certainly be accepting connections from a whitelist. You just have to find one of *those* to get in.
You're right, of course, that it could be hidden and also connected to nothing else. If it has a Signal, that's 'direct radio connection' time.
It's only when a node is fully *off* the Matrix (no Signal radio at all, 'intranet' LAN only) that you absolutely have to use a wired connection.

Heath, I just can't see willfully assuming the rules are intended to be stupid, when they work just fine if you let them.

You're right, it could be accepting certain connections. Perhaps you'd need to find its commlink code first, before being able to Matrix-hack a hidden connection.

[Sengir]

I guess you're right. They've deliberately written this and worded it exactly this way so that the game would be broken. That's the only rational explanation I can see.

Of course, that's what the Devs do all the time (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Aerospider]

I'm not sure how it's possible to misinterpret the statement "In order to hack a node, you must either be within mutual Signal range of the target node’s device or have an open subscription with the node through the Matrix." That doesn't seem like a statement that is open to interpretation.


Since having a subscription requires an account (hacked or otherwise), you can't hack over routers.

It's possible to 'misinterpret' the statement by taking the contradiction you are astutely capable of identifying and then partially invalidating the RAW to make it work, which it seems you are dogmatically incapable of doing.

The hack-on-the-fly action includes logging on, but if you already have a subscription then you are already logged on so it logically follows that the hotf passage implies you do not have a subscription prior to attempting the hack.

This is contradictory to the sentence you quote so one of them must give way. You seem hell-bent on keeping the text that makes remote hacking impossible whilst there are many people here trying to tell you you'll have a much more enjoyable game if you side with the text that doesn't.

[Cardul]

This discussion reminds me of the time a player of mine(new to shadowrun) went to hack into an old-style system....
and was like "What does this red 20 sided polyhedron with two loops around it mean, anyway?" Yeah...
that was a FUN game! *WEG*

[Heath Robinson]

It's possible to 'misinterpret' the statement by taking the contradiction you are astutely capable of identifying and then partially invalidating the RAW to make it work, which it seems you are dogmatically incapable of doing.

The hack-on-the-fly action includes logging on, but if you already have a subscription then you are already logged on so it logically follows that the hotf passage implies you do not have a subscription prior to attempting the hack.

This is contradictory to the sentence you quote so one of them must give way. You seem hell-bent on keeping the text that makes remote hacking impossible whilst there are many people here trying to tell you you'll have a much more enjoyable game if you side with the text that doesn't.

Could you tidy up your first sentence? You say that is possible to misinterpret the statement by doing A. You then go on to say that I am "dogmatically incapable" of doing A. Apparently this means I am misinterpreting the sentence.


There's nothing in the text of Log On or in the Subscription rules to indicate that you can't Log On to the same node multiple times. Your contradiction doesn't exist.


Do you seriously think that I would actually use the very literal interpretations that I discuss on this forum in a real game? I drink the coolaid when I want to play. On Dumpshock, however, I have a committment to the RAWest of the RAW. To do otherwise makes rules discussions about as useful as discussions of the hallucinations we had last time we dropped acid. That is, pointless.

[Aerospider]

Could you tidy up your first sentence? You say that is possible to misinterpret the statement by doing A. You then go on to say that I am "dogmatically incapable" of doing A. Apparently this means I am misinterpreting the sentence.

Well, I actually used inverted commas to denote that your original use of "misinterpret" (those are quotation marks which are different*) was not apt. Then I said that you seemed incapable of "partially invalidating the RAW" which admittedly isn't the clearest of expressions but I felt it was clear enough. What I meant by that was that you haven't been exhibiting any wilful ability to work around the problem.

There's nothing in the text of Log On or in the Subscription rules to indicate that you can't Log On to the same node multiple times. Your contradiction doesn't exist.

I do believe there is more than one mention between SR4A and Unwired concerning the same access ID appearing on the same node simultaneously and that this is generally, if not universally, refused.

Do you seriously think that I would actually use the very literal interpretations that I discuss on this forum in a real game? I drink the coolaid when I want to play. On Dumpshock, however, I have a committment to the RAWest of the RAW. To do otherwise makes rules discussions about as useful as discussions of the hallucinations we had last time we dropped acid. That is, pointless.

Ah, there it is. You weren't looking to improve anyone's gaming experience, strengthen the integrity of the concept of the Sixth World, fix something that was broken or anything like that. You just wanted to show how clever you are in identifying an issue. That's fine, I do it too sometimes (mostly in RL) and I've suspected the same motivation from others in numerous other posts, but it doesn't really achieve anything does it? I said very early on that it was an impressive observation, but if you weren't bringing it up to prevent others from thinking that was how the game is best played then it just looks like you're trying to persuade everyone else that they shouldn't be putting in the fixes that you only now admit to putting into your own game.

I also disagree strongly (no, really?!) that there is no point in discussing rules beyond RAW – house rules, optional rules, tweaking, RAI, custom powers/gear/spirits/etc. and more all have a welcome place here IMO as well as deducing fluff from crunch and vice versa. Indeed generally I find these things far more useful and interesting than "RAW says X so that's that". Only the lazy among us need the rules read out for them and none of them asked about this.

Yes I did seriously think you were boycotting the remote hacking aspect in your home game - you implied it as early as the OP and have given no indication (that I've seen) to the contrary. Why have you not mentioned how it goes in your game? You've been fighting someone else's corner but that someone else doesn't actually exist because it's an unprofitable point of view as you've just agreed.

* Believe it or not that wasn't intended to patronise, but some people do have some funny ideas/blind spots/ignorances when it comes to grammar these days.