Matrix Question, I know I read this? Options

[jimbo]

Is there a case for Hacking/Spoofing where only the target's Signal is used to determine if a wireless link is possible? I thought I read this somewhere when first diving into the rules, but now I can't find it. Is it from Unwired or have to do with the target being in Hidden mode? Something like that? Thanks!

[tagz]

I'm not holding my Unwired at the moment but I don't think so.

As I recall from memory, Hacking requires a subscription and will require mutual signal range, though this can be achieved by routing through other devices.

Spoofing on the other hand does not require a subscription and it should only be necissary to have your device's range reach the spoofed devices. The device recieving the spoof does not need to be in range of you as it is one way communication. Once again, you should be able to route your spoof through other devices if necessary.

Ex:
Cyberware has a range of 0 (3 meters I believe) and your commlink has a signal of 3. You can spoof the cyberware of an enemy (if it has it's wireless on) from 50 meters away. It's just that it can't return any info to you, though it would be sending any info/queries to the ACTUAL Access ID that you used in your spoof anyhow.

Another example would be that a signal 3 comlink could spoof to a signal 2 comlink that was barely in signal range, but that signal 2 comlink wouldn't be able to spoof back from that distance.


Hidden mode does not change signal ranges in any way, but (and I may be mistaken) since a Scan is a data request, the hidden node should have to be within MUTUAL signal range. But again, I'm not 100%.

[Chutzpah]

The way I see the Trix, it doesn't work like radio transmission. If you want to interact to a device it means that this divece is interacting with yours. They may or may not be in mutual signal range, but a route must be established in between.

If you want to spoof a cyberware, you must at least know its ID and find its node (every device has one), but not necessarily be in mutual signal range. If a cyberware has a signal "0" and is in hidden mode, it means that you can't use "detect hidden node" to find it (unless you are very close to it). In this case I suggest that an "intercept traffic" or a "capture wireless signal" action is needed before spoofing a command.

[Yerameyahu]

No, to spoof you just need the 'correct' access ID. Getting that is an issue, of course.

[Chutzpah]

No, to spoof you just need the 'correct' access ID. Getting that is an issue, of course.

Yeah, you're right. You only need the ID of the device you're trying to spoof a command ("getting that is an issue, of course"), and the ID of a legitimate user. It doesn't matter if you can actually SEE the device, as long as the command reaches the target (routing or directly).
Its easy to get lost when dealing with the rules of the Wireless World.
Thanks, man.

[Chutzpah]

Is there a case for Hacking/Spoofing where only the target's Signal is used to determine if a wireless link is possible?

Anyway, I think we got an answer: No, you must be in mutual signal range, or your command must find a route to the device.

Tagz (quote)
"Ex: Cyberware has a range of 0 (3 meters I believe) and your commlink has a signal of 3. You can spoof the cyberware of an enemy (if it has it's wireless on) from 50 meters away. It's just that it can't return any info to you, though it would be sending any info/queries to the ACTUAL Access ID that you used in your spoof anyhow.

Another example would be that a signal 3 comlink could spoof to a signal 2 comlink that was barely in signal range, but that signal 2 comlink wouldn't be able to spoof back from that distance."

I think that spoofing a command requires an interaction between both devices, it doesn't matter whether they are in mutual signal range, or they route to each other. So if you are at 10m from your target, and its signal range is 5m, you can't interact with each other (and can't spoof commands) unless when routing is possible.

I believe Matrix doesn't work like radio transmission (there's always a protocol in every interaction).

[Warlordtheft]

It would a simple protocol to prevent unwanted spoofs. The node is spoofed from outside mutual range. Node replies, please repeat the following set of digits to confirm your request, the hackers comm does not get the request, spoof fails.

Of course it could be argued that part of the spoofing roll is to bypass such code, but that is another line of argument. It boils down to if to function properly the spoofer needs to be in mutual signal range with the node being spoofed).

[Sengir]

It boils down to if to function properly the spoofer needs to be in mutual signal range with the node being spoofed).

If legitimate commands can be sent to a drone via any number of relays, why should a spoofed command (which is a completely normal command with a faked sender) be different?


However I remember one action which only depends on the target's signal: Intercepting wireless traffic only requires you to be in signal range of the sender...the reason I remember is because detecting a hidden node(which in RL would be done by intercepting traffic) requires mutal signal range again (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotate.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

That's the clearest explanation I've heard: a Spoofed command is subject to the same restrictions as a normal Issue Command.

But I like the idea that you could program all your gear to require CAPTCHA confirmation and mutual sig/subscription. It's a tradeoff, so it's fairer.

[Chutzpah]

But I like the idea that you could program all your gear to require CAPTCHA confirmation and mutual sig/subscription. It's a tradeoff, so it's fairer.

Node replies, please repeat the following set of digits to confirm your request, the hackers comm does not get the request, spoof fails.

So "issuing comand" becomes a complex action? (It would be like decrypting + issue command actions in a complex one...)

Anyway I think it's reasonable that spoofing can be done while routing. It would be a part of the action to edit traffic between the device and the legitimate user:

" (...)The machine that receives spoofed packets will send response back to the forged source address, which means that this technique is mainly used when the attacker does not care about the response or the attacker has some way of guessing the response.
In certain cases, it might be possible for the attacker to see or redirect the response to his own machine. The most usual case is when the attacker is spoofing an address on the same LAN or WAN. Hence the attackers have an unauthorized access over computers." (wikipedia)

Anyway, why is spoofing a command an opposed test, and not just a success test? Probably because the hacker must overcome certain countermeasures of the target device.

[Yerameyahu]

Well, I said only if the user in question opted to configure his devices that way. I think you're right about the opposed test implication, but I'm only describing an additional trade-off configuration.

As for routing, I don't anyone's suggested that spoofing can't be done that way. I certainly wouldn't.

[Warlordtheft]

As for routing, I don't anyone's suggested that spoofing can't be done that way. I certainly wouldn't.

Ditto here. I qualify routing as part of the signal range.

Quite simply I was just pointing out that with that one line of code you could rule out spoofing unless you're in mutual signal range. Not a complex action (or any action)-just a series of back end processes that would take a milisec.

[Chutzpah]

Ok. Thank you, guys.

(This subject is starting to give me headaches! It's hard to put everything you know about the 'trix together).