Dominating a Host, A Decker question Options

[Max Denim]

If a really skilled decker was to take on a host that was really easy for him (or her), then could he convievably dominate the host such that he could control the host's Security Tally and Alert status? Where I am going with this is simple, assume that the decker's goal was to take control quickly and prevent even a passive alert from happening and then essentially "shutting off" the system's ability to hinder him so that he could have free access to the system? Naturally, with the larger hosts, this would be much more difficult, but would it be impossible? For those of you (read:most) who used to play the SEGA Genesis version, then I am sure that you would remember how if you could control the CPU then you could essentially keep control the alert status indefinately. I would assume that the answer would have to be yes, since the thing is a computer, or rather a network of computers. It seems that there would have to be some way to pull this off. :cyber:

[mfb]

logically? yes. in game terms? no.

if you know anything about computers, here's the best way to deal with SR's matrix system. first, acquire a spoon. second, use the spoon to scoop out the part of your brain that knows about computers. from that point on, you'll never have any problems with it.

[Max Denim]

So far, that's the best reply ;)

[Kanada Ten]

One can emulate the effect by creating Superuser accounts, and thus never generate higher tallies during their stay. If the host is that easy to Control that is.

[mfb]

even then, there are things you can't do without generating a sec tally. i don't have my book on me atm, so i can't tell you what they are, but even a super acct isn't carte blanche.

[Max Denim]

Amazing, so if the host was just a three-computer network set up by the local Dell equivelant company for Joe-Shmoe's UOL online junk-bargain-business, but he could afford to put a low-level security system on it (Read: Blue 2) then, according to the rules, even Diabolique herself couldn't keep the damned thing from going into alert status's other than to rely on her Detection Factor? I assume then, that at least the Dell guy can handle it. Does anyone know if the Dell guy is available for my next run?

[BitBasher]

Right, because the security tally is operated in such a way that it may not phsycally be able to be reset by anyone except a person sitting at the console. That's not so hard of a thing to believe. In fact, its a fairly good way to build a system you want secure.

[Kagetenshi]

Against a TN of 12+, that Blue-2 host isn't going to be racking up enough tally to trigger a Passive Alert for a very long time.

~J

[Max Denim]

Target number 12+?
What am I missing? If the decker only had a detection factor of something like 8 then the target number would only be 8 right? Sure, it would be only every third to fifth Sys Op (Blue 2 example) that would trigger a single tally jump, but it would happen. Is there something that I am missing on the target numbers of hosts? (not being cute, its just that I don't know)

[Shockwave_IIc]

[mfb]

indeed, especially after you drop 6 hacking pool into your DF.

[Eyeless Blond]

[mfb]

nope. the parts of a host that control sec tally and IC are magically inaccessible.

[Eyeless Blond]

[Eyeless Blond]

[BitBasher]

[mfb]

that's what i mean--they're magically inaccessible, even if you're physically at the console. can't mess with 'em, period. and, no, that answer doesn't really satisfy me, either, but SR's rules have given me enough bruises on my forehead for now.

[BitBasher]

:P

Theyre not magically inacessable, there just weren;t rules provided for it, theres a difference.

Theres no rules for going to the bathroom but that doesn't mean that everyone in the SR universe "Magically doesnt go to the bathroom". It just means the book happened not to address it.

[Kakkaraun]

So, like, uhm, nobody has house rules?

?

[mfb]

yes, but how often do you need rules for going to the bathroom? compare that to how often a decker hacks the controlling terminal for a host--or how often it would happen, if there were rules for doing so.

besides which, there are programs available now that let you control a remote computer as if you were physically sitting in front of it--you see their desktop, you control their mouse, typing on your keyboard shows up on their screen, etc. is this type of software going to cease to exist, by 2060?

[BitBasher]

[mfb]

i dunno. 'playability' is a poor excuse--Uplink is very playable, and it's way more realistic than SR's decking rules. i think the basic design concept behind SR's Matrix rules is flawed, to be honest--they tried too hard to make decking accessible to everyone. but, in my experience, most of the people who like playing deckers are into computers in real life to some degree already; the 'accessibility' of SR's Matrix rules is a real turn-off to most of the players who'd be interested in the ruleset to begin with!

[BitBasher]

I would like to point out that the entirety of networking and computer tech was rebuilt after the crash of 29. Decking in SR is not supposed to have to bear any resemblance of the way it works today. It's based on an entirely different set of technologies and methodologies.

That itself creates some other issues, but thats the way it is supposed to be. just beacuse its not done the way we do it in the real word means nothing in SR canon.

[Max Denim]

Great. So, back to the original question. Is it safe to say that it is the general consensus that it is impossible to completely dominate even the simplest of hosts, regardless of skill or deck, other than to rely on a system's general inability to generate higher Detection Factors in a timely fashion? Or would the general agreement be that this really is just an uncovered issue that would demand house rules to resolve?

[BitBasher]

Pretty much yes.

Also, I would never allow that to be done remotely, the decker would have to be at the console to perform those actions.