ok, so here is a diffrent take on the issue.
can i connect to a smartlink by going thru the matrix and straight to the smartlink? or do i have to take on the comlink of the user first?
if its the former then i can see the point of having every item in the PAN count on the comlinks subscriptions list.
if its the latter then i would say that PAN devices clearly use a diffrent protocol from the normal matrix protocol and have to be translated by the comlink before it can be sendt over the matrix. this again indicates to me that PAN devices should not count on the normal subscriptions list.
im leaning towards the latter as i see PAN devices as using a SR version of bluetooth. but comlink to comlink connections or matrix connections in general uses a SR variant of WIFI. yes they both use radio waves, but they use completly diffrent protocols.
hell, i think there is even a third protocol in use in SR, one specific to RFIDs. only the comlink is able to talk all three, the rest talk maybe 1 or at best two of them.
thing is tho that the user dont have to know this, they only have to know that the smartlink is a PAN device, and the display contects are a PAN device. and if paired correctly they will talk to each other. however, if you pair them with the comlink then you have better access to controls for both of them. this however depends on the PAN devices being able to go without a comlink.
if a comlink is required for basic operations of the smartlink and display contacts setup then it becomes even more absurd that they should count on the subscription list...
but this is all my thinking without seeing the exact text of the book. and there may be something in how its written that can make me see things in a new way.
Full Version: Hacking Tutorial
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| and i guess there is a "not" missing in the first part of your post. |
You're right, there was a "not" missing in there.
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| can i connect to a smartlink by going thru the matrix and straight to the smartlink? or do i have to take on the comlink of the user first? |
The assumption (at least i don't remember it being stated anywhere in the book) is that when you configure a device to connect to your PAN via the commlink. The device can only send communications out through the commlink and can only receive them from the commlink.
In this way, your PAN can only be seen in the Matrix by the node designating your commlink. Once a user/hacker accesses your commlink then and only then can it see the other nodes (all of your linked devices) that are connected to the commlink.
I believe the intention is that they're all using the same protocol so. A modern day equivalent would be TCP/IP, its a protocol that is used of internet traffic, but can also be used for a standalone local network (you could have one main computer/server setup directly connected to the internet, and then have it also send local network addresses to all the devices connected to it. From the outside only the server IP can be seen and all the other devices can talk to each other through the server.)
i can accept the idea that you need a comlink to create and maintain a PAN. the problem si that if one is using the same protocol both inside and outside of the PAN then you could in theory get within 3 meters (isnt that the PAN range?) of the other person and then connect directly to the persons PAN.
hell, even if there is a special protcol used, that holds as all comlink should be able to talk said protocol.
still, why should a sammie need a high level comlink just to manage his PAN?
hell, even if there is a special protcol used, that holds as all comlink should be able to talk said protocol.
still, why should a sammie need a high level comlink just to manage his PAN?
Because nothing else in the gear section of the SR4 book is designed to create and administer a PAN like a commlink is. All the other gear in the book is designed to slave itself to a commlink; I suppose if you knew what you were doing you could reconfigure everything to communicate peer-to-peer--heck, that might even be a default option when there's no commlink for everything to slave to--but it's definately an inferior choice as anything that gets within signal range can easily connect to and therefore hijack all your gear in an instant.
I thought I read something somewhere that said the devices could talk directly to each other. Like your smartlinked guns to your smartlink enabled contacts. Wouldn't that imply that the commlink is not necessary to maintain the connections? Granted, it would add another level of security and would allow you to control devices that you otherwise do not have a DNI with.
I'd imagine it acts like modern day WiFi. Say you've got two laptops with built-in wireless adapters (say 802.11b).
Option 1: You can have another device (wireless router) that is your Access Point and is connected to the internet. Then you have the two laptops connect to the router to establish a network and allows them connect to the internet if needed, but all communication goes through the router.
Option 2: You can create an ad-hoc peer-to-peer network between the two laptops without any internet access or additional hardware. In this option each laptop is broadcasting its signal to any device configured for peer-to-peer networking and within its signal range.
The two options are mutually exclusive. While each device has both options, only one options can be used at a time.
For SR4, using Option 1 requires a commlink, which acts as the router, and only lets other devices (smartlink, display link, etc.) communicate through the commlink. In this way, a hacker cannot try to hack the smartlink without first hacking the commlink.
Using Option 2 in SR4 does not require a commlink, but it opens each individual device to hacking attempts by anybody within the signal range.
Option 1: You can have another device (wireless router) that is your Access Point and is connected to the internet. Then you have the two laptops connect to the router to establish a network and allows them connect to the internet if needed, but all communication goes through the router.
Option 2: You can create an ad-hoc peer-to-peer network between the two laptops without any internet access or additional hardware. In this option each laptop is broadcasting its signal to any device configured for peer-to-peer networking and within its signal range.
The two options are mutually exclusive. While each device has both options, only one options can be used at a time.
For SR4, using Option 1 requires a commlink, which acts as the router, and only lets other devices (smartlink, display link, etc.) communicate through the commlink. In this way, a hacker cannot try to hack the smartlink without first hacking the commlink.
Using Option 2 in SR4 does not require a commlink, but it opens each individual device to hacking attempts by anybody within the signal range.
problem is that with option 1 a enterprising hacker within PAN range (3m) should be able to spoof the smartlink into thinking that its taking commands from the users comlink when instead its taking commands from the hackers comlink.
so option 2 is not less secure then option 1. if anything its more secure as the hacker have to get within 3 meters of the smartlink user. with option 1 you just have to crack the comlink of the user and that can be done from the other side of the planet...
so option 2 is not less secure then option 1. if anything its more secure as the hacker have to get within 3 meters of the smartlink user. with option 1 you just have to crack the comlink of the user and that can be done from the other side of the planet...
I don't remember the rules for spoofing off the top of my head, so I'll just leave off questioning how easy it would be to spoof the commlink's signal for now.
If you can spoof the commlink's signal to the smartlink, you would still have to be within the same range as the smartlink's signal. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to detect that it was there to try hacking it.
Also, I'd expect commlink signals (at least for anybody worth hacking for anything other than giggles) would be encrypted. So, I believe you'd also have to decrypt the signal before you could spoof it.
If you can spoof the commlink's signal to the smartlink, you would still have to be within the same range as the smartlink's signal. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to detect that it was there to try hacking it.
Also, I'd expect commlink signals (at least for anybody worth hacking for anything other than giggles) would be encrypted. So, I believe you'd also have to decrypt the signal before you could spoof it.
Well for starters hacking the commlink is harder than hacking the unsecured Firewall-less devices.
Pretending you're the commlink without first compromising the commlink has its problems as well. It's pretty easy to have the device ask for an acknolegement of some sort every time a command is given; if I'm not mistaken most protocols already implement this, as an error-protection measure. Then you'll get two responses--one from your spoofing and one from the real commlink--which will confuse the device and (by default) have it ignore the command.
Pretending you're the commlink without first compromising the commlink has its problems as well. It's pretty easy to have the device ask for an acknolegement of some sort every time a command is given; if I'm not mistaken most protocols already implement this, as an error-protection measure. Then you'll get two responses--one from your spoofing and one from the real commlink--which will confuse the device and (by default) have it ignore the command.
| QUOTE |
| Well for starters hacking the commlink is harder than hacking the unsecured Firewall-less devices. |
All devices have a Firewall. The Device Rating for any device is used for all stats (Signal, System, Response, and Firewall).
Sure its going to be lower than your commlink's, but it does have one.
Sure its going to be lower than your commlink's, but it does have one.
So what's the Device Rating on a smartgun link?
Smartgun links are probably considered standard electronics, so rating 3. If you get it implanted as alphaware it goes up to rating 4.
Huh, now that's just silly. So, according to p. 214 in order to get a commlink with the same security ratings as every piece of alphaware (Rating 4) in the game, you have to spend 6,500 Y (Avalon + Navi), and you *still* won't get the same System rating?
Wow, that makes no sense whatsoever.
Huh, now that's just silly. So, according to p. 214 in order to get a commlink with the same security ratings as every piece of alphaware (Rating 4) in the game, you have to spend 6,500 Y (Avalon + Navi), and you *still* won't get the same System rating?
Wow, that makes no sense whatsoever.
What's the price of the minimum piece of alphaware necessary?
Maybe... alphaware protective coverings over your normal flesh-and-blood eyes?
200?
That's away cheaper than an implanted commlink.
Maybe... alphaware protective coverings over your normal flesh-and-blood eyes?
200?That's away cheaper than an implanted commlink.
Well have you notice the Device Rating for a credstick, which only costs 25 ?
It's 6!
Which makes it a better platform to be running agents on than the most expensive commlink you can get at chargen. Since every device is a node and you can run programs on any of them and storage capacity isn't an issue anymore, there is nothing rules wise to say it wouldn't work.
Though, I'd expect most (if not all) gms would rule that there isn't enough capacity in a credstick to hold an agent and the associated programs.
?It's 6!
Which makes it a better platform to be running agents on than the most expensive commlink you can get at chargen. Since every device is a node and you can run programs on any of them and storage capacity isn't an issue anymore, there is nothing rules wise to say it wouldn't work.
Though, I'd expect most (if not all) gms would rule that there isn't enough capacity in a credstick to hold an agent and the associated programs.
im guessing that most likely only the firewall is at the devices rating. the rest of the stats are at the minimum needed to support a firewall of that rating.
anything else is just silly...
so, lets say that when you first pair up a smartlink, comlink and a display of some sort they basicly exchange encryption keys. these keys are replaced by new ones are semireguler intervals. but only on the first pairing are they transmitted in the clear. that is unless you physicaly invoke the pairing mode again.
on the other hand, a comlink allso connects to the outside world. this most likely happens by exchanging keys with any system it connects to or that connects to it. the subscription list most likely is the one that holds these keys.
questions stil remains tho. should the PAN devices allso be listed on that list?
anything else is just silly...
so, lets say that when you first pair up a smartlink, comlink and a display of some sort they basicly exchange encryption keys. these keys are replaced by new ones are semireguler intervals. but only on the first pairing are they transmitted in the clear. that is unless you physicaly invoke the pairing mode again.
on the other hand, a comlink allso connects to the outside world. this most likely happens by exchanging keys with any system it connects to or that connects to it. the subscription list most likely is the one that holds these keys.
questions stil remains tho. should the PAN devices allso be listed on that list?
| QUOTE (SR4 p213) |
| Device Rating (Universal) Th ere are far too many electronics in the world of Shadowrun for a gamemaster to keep track of their individual Matrix attributes. Instead, each device is simply given a Device rating. Unless it has been customized or changed in some way, assume that each of the Matrix attributes listed above for a particular device equals its Device rating. |
The only text regarding use of the general Device Rating says that it is used for all Matrix attributes. Matrix attributes being Signal, Response, System, and Firewall. You can say that is silly, and I would tend to agree, but it would be a house rule. One argument for the universal rating being for everything would be a modern day cell phone. You want it to have a strong signal, respond quickly to you (ok that is a little bit lame as a comparison but whatever), be able to handle a bunch of crap (mp3, text messaging, voice commands, etc.), and at least some protection. When you buy high quality of anything you'd expect every aspect of it to be good quality.
Would you buy a $100,000 car with only manual rollup windows? Hell, no! It better freaking have power everything, a powerful engine, smooth suspension, etc.
As to if PAN devices have to be on your subscriber list, the answer is yes.
| QUOTE (SR4 p212) |
| In game terms, your persona maintains a subscription list of nodes that you are accessing and that are allowed to establish communication with you. |
| QUOTE (SR4 p216) |
| Node—Any device or network that can be accessed. |
The first of those two quotes clearly says that any node you are accessing and communicating with must be part of your subscription list.
The second quote shows that any device that can be accessed is a node. Thus, you smartlink, display link, etc. are each consider nodes.
And since any use of such devices would require communication with them, they must be on your subscription list according to the first quote.
problem is that to me it sounds like a node is supposed to be on the matrix outside of the comlink. ie, other comlinks, drones and building computer systems. only funny thing is that a agent on a remote system counts as a node given that you have to have it on your list of subscriptions to give it orders, but as you have to do that to drones to it makes a bit sense.
in the end it kinda comes down to what one puts in the word accessed i guess...
in the end it kinda comes down to what one puts in the word accessed i guess...
| QUOTE (Slacker) | ||||
The first of those two quotes clearly says that any node you are accessing and communicating with must be part of your subscription list. The second quote shows that any device that can be accessed is a node. Thus, you smartlink, display link, etc. are each consider nodes. |
If several devices were linked together into a network, wouldn't it be possible to access the network as a single node?
People fixate on the the first part of the definition of a node, and say "Devices are nodes" as if that were the end of the story. Networks are also nodes, however, and SR4 defines network as:
| QUOTE (SR4 p.216) |
| Networks-Interacting groups of computerized devices |
In other words, devices can be aggregated together in a network, and the network itself counts as one node.
So how do you tell when to use a device by itself as a node, and when to treat the group of devices as a network node? It comes down how you configure the devices. If you require a seperate password to access the device, it's a node by itself. If one password gets you access to all the devices at once, then the network is the node.
| QUOTE (RunnerPaul) |
| In other words, devices can be aggregated together in a network, and the network itself counts as one node. So how do you tell when to use a device by itself as a node, and when to treat the group of devices as a network node? It comes down how you configure the devices. If you require a seperate password to access the device, it's a node by itself. If one password gets you access to all the devices at once, then the network is the node. |
This is the heart of my question. I think depending on how a group of devices interact, they are either a single node or a group of nodes. A computer network within a corporate building would be a single node. This is why there would be differing levels of access. A single car or drone would be a node, generally speaking.
I think the confusion comes from the fact that all wireless devices (which would be most devices in SR4), broadcast through the airwaves to each other, and in theory, can be hacked into. Having said that, a security system, with all of it's sensors and cameras might exist completely within the single node of a corporation's network node, assuming each of the individual devices are wireless, then they can also each be hacked individually.
I think the difference they don't go into, is how easy it is to take actions within a large network node, or a single device node. When hacking into someone's smartlink (regardless of how difficult it might be), there isn't as much to do as when you're inside the personnel files of Ares. I think when inside a large network, data searches would be called for often, and the thresholds would be high, whereas the opposite would be true within a single device node.
Also, I could be completely wrong, but I think when trying to hack a drone, there are two ways to go about it:
1) locate its wireless signal, and hack into it directly. You'll have to convince it you're authorized to use it before issuing it orders. These can be fairly easily contested by their actually authorized user, especially if the hacker isn't continually contesting the orders.
2) hack into the comlink of the commanding rigger, make yourself an authorized user, and you can basically hijack all his drones without having to spoof your way through it. At that point, the Rigger would have to take more drastic measures to kick you out. That's what you get for lax security on your comlink.
Does this make sense to anyone else? Am I way-off? Am I a raving lunatic? Let me know.
Dread Polack
@Dread Polack: The two methods for hacking a drone that you stated are I believe the only methods for doing so.
As to the whole network/node situation, here's how I see it (mind you it is simply an opinion, but it's how I've been running it and haven't had complaints from my players) a network of nodes is seen as a single node to the outside. For the admin/user of a network, each device appears as a single node, but to somebody not logged into it, it appears as a single node.
The Matrix is just a large system of networks and sub-networks: each RTG has multiple LTG's, each of which have many, many systems connected to them and often those systems are networks thems.
I believe this is the way it works in RL, your ISP gives you an IP address, you can do whatever you want with that, including creating a network of your own that shares that IP, and you could even create a subnetwork from that one and so on and so forth. From outside your home or office network, somebody would at most be able to see the public IP address, they wouldn't see the computers that are sharing that IP address until they logged onto the network.
In the example of surveillance systems. I see one computer operating a network of cameras on its own subscriber list, another computer operating a network of maglocked doors on its own subscriber list, another computer operating a network of automated response devices on its own subscriber list,.....you get the idea.
And then there is a security computer that has each of those computers connected to it on its higher level subscriber list.
As to the whole network/node situation, here's how I see it (mind you it is simply an opinion, but it's how I've been running it and haven't had complaints from my players) a network of nodes is seen as a single node to the outside. For the admin/user of a network, each device appears as a single node, but to somebody not logged into it, it appears as a single node.
The Matrix is just a large system of networks and sub-networks: each RTG has multiple LTG's, each of which have many, many systems connected to them and often those systems are networks thems.
I believe this is the way it works in RL, your ISP gives you an IP address, you can do whatever you want with that, including creating a network of your own that shares that IP, and you could even create a subnetwork from that one and so on and so forth. From outside your home or office network, somebody would at most be able to see the public IP address, they wouldn't see the computers that are sharing that IP address until they logged onto the network.
In the example of surveillance systems. I see one computer operating a network of cameras on its own subscriber list, another computer operating a network of maglocked doors on its own subscriber list, another computer operating a network of automated response devices on its own subscriber list,.....you get the idea.
And then there is a security computer that has each of those computers connected to it on its higher level subscriber list.
| QUOTE (Slacker) |
| I believe this is the way it works in RL, your ISP gives you an IP address, you can do whatever you want with that, including creating a network of your own that shares that IP, and you could even create a subnetwork from that one and so on and so forth. From outside your home or office network, somebody would at most be able to see the public IP address, they wouldn't see the computers that are sharing that IP address until they logged onto the network. |
ah yes, a NAT setup.
problem is tho that using that if two people walked within 3 meters of each other then you would get total confusion as the diffrent PAN where picking up messages from each others.
still the basic idea is good, and is realy just a twist on the two protocols explanation/theory i put forward. instead if using two protocols one is using two address spaces. one private and one public.
gah, its silly that they could not think of writing a clear cut bit of text about comlinks and what goes into the subscription list or not. leaving it up to interpeting nodes, devices and whats not is just to foggy to be practical...
another tought that just hit me is that a office node must have one hell of a subscription list
basicly they must be running a custom system that allows maybe x10 or x100 other nodes to connect to the office node.i think that maybe its best to leave the node stamp for devices that can talk matrix directly. afaik, a smartlink, a cyberlimb or for that matter a display contact cant connect directly to the matrix. they have to go thru a comlink.
this again leads me to suspect differing protocols, and therefor differing or nonexistant subscription list...
Ooh, Awakening a months-dead thread!
Ok. I was looking at page 1 of this thread, and only briefly scanned pages 2 and three. I was caught by surprise with the talk of a commlink's Response limiting its System rating. I looked at the index of the SR4 rulebook and see only 2 page listings for response: 212 and 216.
P.212 says that reponse is the device's processing power. Its use? Combine Response with your intuition to determine Matrix Initiative.
P. 216 simply provides a side-bar definition of Response. "A computer attribute representing raw processing power."
Sorry if I'm bringing up a matter that has already been cleared up elsewhere, but I'm going to be playing a hacker next weekend and I really HOPE that Response isn't anything more than an initiative modifier and a theoretical limit as to how many programs I can run. If there is another place in the book where it states that Response limits the maximum rating of a device's system attribute, please lemme know!
I DO see on p.226 that Reality Filter uses Response + Program rating in an opposed test to function, but that's still not the same.
Thanks for any help you can give or point me to!
Ok. I was looking at page 1 of this thread, and only briefly scanned pages 2 and three. I was caught by surprise with the talk of a commlink's Response limiting its System rating. I looked at the index of the SR4 rulebook and see only 2 page listings for response: 212 and 216.
P.212 says that reponse is the device's processing power. Its use? Combine Response with your intuition to determine Matrix Initiative.
P. 216 simply provides a side-bar definition of Response. "A computer attribute representing raw processing power."
Sorry if I'm bringing up a matter that has already been cleared up elsewhere, but I'm going to be playing a hacker next weekend and I really HOPE that Response isn't anything more than an initiative modifier and a theoretical limit as to how many programs I can run. If there is another place in the book where it states that Response limits the maximum rating of a device's system attribute, please lemme know!
I DO see on p.226 that Reality Filter uses Response + Program rating in an opposed test to function, but that's still not the same.
Thanks for any help you can give or point me to!
| QUOTE (Skippy @ Jan 9 2006, 04:34 PM) |
| If there is another place in the book where it states that Response limits the maximum rating of a device's system attribute, please lemme know! |
"A System Program is limited by the Response Rating of the device it is on; a System run on a device with a lower Response rating functions at the Response rating instead." p.213, under the subheading System (Software) in the section on Matrix Attributes
*Smack's Forehead* Thank you, RunnerPaul. heh. If it were a snake...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.