I think you're missing the point of this system. Yes, there are some assumptions you have to make. But you can apply logic and come out with a pretty simple system. I don't really see what's so wrong with Pilot being a different type of System (one that apparently runs Autosofts instead of programs because of a highly specialized nature). System trades the decision making capability of Pilot for the ability to run many different functions, including Agents which act as mini Pilots based off computer users rather than a specific drone.
I may be way off base here but that's how I run it in game and it has worked wonders. My players who were too intimidated to play a decker in SR1-3 are all taking a few hacking skills and learning that system. And liking it a lot. It doesn't bog down with rules and numbers and stats. It's quick to run during game. To be honest, as the matrix system exists in the book, it's a wonderful improvement over the old matrix rules.
I read Serbitar's guides when a player showed them to me. I really dug the paranoia part and made it required reading for all my players. But the matrix guide turned me off. I saw too many points that would make the average player turn away and play another street sam. My younger brother, who plays a covert-centric hacker/assassin, got so frustrated me sat out of a session. A players choice I know, but I thought it was a shame based on how simple the rules seemed to me. In this case it seems like basing things on reality (I should point out, our 68 year old reality) is damaging to the spirit of the system.
I don't want to discount the work done by the community, specifically certain members, but I have to wonder why so much clearification was needed when the majority of my players get the system and understand it as it is.
Full Version: Protecting drones from hackers
| QUOTE (otakusensei) |
| I don't want to discount the work done by the community, specifically certain members, but I have to wonder why so much clearification was needed when the majority of my players get the system and understand it as it is. |
because a lot of other people don't get it, and more to the point those who do "get it" don't get it the same way.
essentially, Serbitar is not so much saying "here's what the rules are" so much as he is saying "here's an interpretation of the rules".
essentially, if you and all of your players all think the matrix works exactly the same (or mostly the same, at any rate) then you can feel free to ignore other people's advice... in fact, i would avoid it. you have a rather rare situation going, and you don't want to contaminate it
but essentially, large parts of the system are not really specified. some things are hinted at, some things are mentioned but never really fully explained how they work... basically most of the matrix rules are extremely open to interpretation.
| QUOTE (otakusensei) |
| I don't really see what's so wrong with Pilot being a different type of System (one that apparently runs Autosofts instead of programs because of a highly specialized nature). System trades the decision making capability of Pilot for the ability to run many different functions, including Agents which act as mini Pilots based off computer users rather than a specific drone. |
So you cant run Agents on a Drone?
Well, have fun, then.
| QUOTE ("serbitar") |
| (that uses the nodes System and Firewall ratings just like every other persona does) |
so basically your saying, buy a agent, system and firewall. put agent inside the node generated by the system. replace the agent stats with the system and firewall stat? isnt that more or less what pilot is all about?
its like we are arguing semantics or something...
btw, a drone pilot is the only matrix entity (if one can call it that) able to use autosoft iirc.
hell, i wonder why your not having a hissy fit over there being a separate name for agents tasked with defending a node. you know, those classical intrusion countermeasures (IC)...
What's wrong with not being able to run an agent on a drone pilot? Why should you be able to? They way I approach it isn't a "Start with a System and make it a Pilot" method but by taking it from the description that they are two separate things that have some similar functions because they tend to share networks. This eliminates the "Pilot=System+Agent" thinking completely and explains away your confusion as to why they didn't go that route, Serb.
Are there any official rules or FAQs that contradict this?
Are there any official rules or FAQs that contradict this?
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) | ||
so basically your saying, buy a agent, system and firewall. put agent inside the node generated by the system. replace the agent stats with the system and firewall stat? isnt that more or less what pilot is all about? its like we are arguing semantics or something... btw, a drone pilot is the only matrix entity (if one can call it that) able to use autosoft iirc. hell, i wonder why your not having a hissy fit over there being a separate name for agents tasked with defending a node. you know, those classical intrusion countermeasures (IC)... |
No, per RAW, the agent uses his pilot rating as System and Firewall, not the one of the node. Actually it IS the system to some interpretations. Depending on whom you ask, drone nodes must have such a pilot system as their "main" System (whatever it means to have more than one system ratings).
With this combination you have quit some problems to find out how things interact.
If you just say: OK the agent replaces the rigger/hacker in every aspect with its rating and takes up a program slot, and the rest stays the same, thats much easier.
Instead there is pilot that has a system rating, and gets a firewall rating when it turns into an agent. But it can only have autosoft when its only a pilot and nobody has the slightest idea whether the pilot is actually the system of the node or a sub node in the node with a sperate system rating and so on . . .
So its definitely not semantics.
| QUOTE (otakusensei) |
| What's wrong with not being able to run an agent on a drone pilot? Why should you be able to? They way I approach it isn't a "Start with a System and make it a Pilot" method but by taking it from the description that they are two separate things that have some similar functions because they tend to share networks. This eliminates the "Pilot=System+Agent" thinking completely and explains away your confusion as to why they didn't go that route, Serb. |
Well, then vehicle nodes can not run agents/IC. Thats bad. And I see no reason why they shouldnt be able to. Just because of this strange an completely unstreamlined approach.
| QUOTE |
Are there any official rules or FAQs that contradict this? |
Not in any way I am aware of.
| QUOTE (cetiah) |
| It's often a staple of most cyberpunk literature that I've seen (not that I've seen that much) that included VR Matrix-like interactions, that users always seem to have to make these choices, shutting off one program to replace it with another. |
That happens for two reasons:
First, it was usual when those stories were written.
And, more important... it was a cheap plot device.
True. I could live without "program load" rules. But they are not that bad, make some things interesting (and should only be used in those situations).
| QUOTE (otakusensei) |
| This eliminates the "Pilot=System+Agent" thinking completely and explains away your confusion as to why they didn't go that route, Serb. |
The only one here who is obsessed by "Pilot=System+Agent" is Serbitar.
The RAW clearly isn't, as it goes the other way round.
So it's like with most imaginary problems - they only exist if you want them to.
Here's a question. Per the rules as you understand them, can you plug your datajack into a drone and use it as a commlink? I'd say no personally, it's not made for that sort of thing. The Pilot of the node, though it acts as System in many respects, is not System. Whether the rules support that or not I'm not entirely sure, but that's what I walked away with. As for running IC on the Pilot of a drone (as it does not have System after all) you would be out of luck. You could have an Agent on a connected system monitor that drone and occasionally log onto it remotely (much like a hacker does) but the agent itself couldn't run on it. The agent could run Analyze in it's own persona (taking responce on it's home commlink) to check and see what is accessing the drone, and even run cybercombat the same way. You could not however have an inactive Agent loaded into the emory of the drone ready to start up as IC when intrusion is detected.
Do the rules support this as I've stated or am I missing something?
Do the rules support this as I've stated or am I missing something?
| QUOTE (otakusensei) |
| What's wrong with not being able to run an agent on a drone pilot? Why should you be able to? They way I approach it isn't a "Start with a System and make it a Pilot" method but by taking it from the description that they are two separate things that have some similar functions because they tend to share networks. This eliminates the "Pilot=System+Agent" thinking completely and explains away your confusion as to why they didn't go that route, Serb. Are there any official rules or FAQs that contradict this? |
I don't think it matters how you define it, really. Serb's problem isn't that Pilot is "system+agent". That's just one of the models of showing that the problem's a problem. I think Serb's objection is that the Pilot attribute exists. Period. And it doesn't have to. There are better tools for this sort of thing.
You could define Pilot a different way, and knock everything that Serb has been saying for this unrelated definition, but that still doesn't "explain away Serb's confusion".
| QUOTE (otakusensei @ Jan 10 2007, 07:18 PM) |
| Here's a question. Per the rules as you understand them, can you plug your datajack into a drone and use it as a commlink? I'd say no personally, it's not made for that sort of thing. The Pilot of the node, though it acts as System in many respects, is not System. Whether the rules support that or not I'm not entirely sure, but that's what I walked away with. As for running IC on the Pilot of a drone (as it does not have System after all) you would be out of luck. You could have an Agent on a connected system monitor that drone and occasionally log onto it remotely (much like a hacker does) but the agent itself couldn't run on it. The agent could run Analyze in it's own persona (taking responce on it's home commlink) to check and see what is accessing the drone, and even run cybercombat the same way. You could not however have an inactive Agent loaded into the emory of the drone ready to start up as IC when intrusion is detected. Do the rules support this as I've stated or am I missing something? |
To answer your question, as per the rules as I understand them, yes, you can plug your datajack into a drone and use it as a commlink. Referring to it by these 2070 terms kind of dissassociates the matter for me, though. Try this:
Could you plug your datajack into your car and use it like a computer? Why or why not? Could you play games through your car? Watch trid?
I like the idea that you can plug into your car, though there's no need if everyone has a commlink. But you can. You can surf the matrix. You can download mapsofts into your car. You can request a trid broadcast. Pirate audio streams can blare in surround sound. Transparent trid video can play as a background on your windshield. Whatever electronic/digital networking gimmick you can think of should be taken to the Nth degree. That's the Wireless World for you.
You could even plug into the matrix, do some shopping, buy a Maneuver autosoft, and download it right into your car. If you don't feel like jacking into to do it, you can just do it simply do it by voice command, too.
hmm, cetiah's postings made me think that some of the issue is the overlap between the drone pilot stat and the agent pilot rating.
never seen the issue with that, but ill spend a bit more time reading the book...
something tells me that this is mostly a editing problem as they ran out of space.
maybe pop a faq request or wait for unwired or arsenal to go into more detail. as it stands now we could be tossing stuff back and forth like monkeys in different trees and never get to a conclusion...
never seen the issue with that, but ill spend a bit more time reading the book...
something tells me that this is mostly a editing problem as they ran out of space.
maybe pop a faq request or wait for unwired or arsenal to go into more detail. as it stands now we could be tossing stuff back and forth like monkeys in different trees and never get to a conclusion...
Seems to me like the software that constitutes a Pilot rating on a node and the software that constitutes a System rating on a node are similar (they interchange rating based on situation), can be run on the same types of hardware (same networks, same Firewall and Response), but are limited in what they work with (Programs and Agents vs. Autosofts).
The key is that a drone Pilot doesn't take resources, the response isn't lowered automatically. Therefore we aren't dealing with a System running a dedicated Agent to provide the Pilot rating, but instead a specialized type of OS that is essentially a Pilot only. There is nothing in the book that says a Program will run on a drone Pilot, save Autosofts which can only be run by Pilots. So why should you be able to? Any precieved balance or flavor reasons aside I don't see anything that says you should be able to run anything other than Autosofts on a node with a Pilot rating. Please quote the rule if I'm wrong. An Agent has a Pilot rating, and it can USE programs, but it and any programs it is using are on a commlink according to the section.
This all makes sense to me from a balance stand point as well. A hacker can feed his drones the best commands he can think of, come up with complex behavior patterns and contingencies, but can't load an Agent on it to act as a "Monkey with a Hammer" as the recent commercial shows so graphically. He has to moniter it from the outside and when it gets away from him he has to deal with the reality that it may be taken over and used against him without his knowing.
Everything has a commlink type device in it nowadays (your gun, coat, cyberarm, etc.), except those devices that are made to think for themselves to perform that function (like a drone). I don't see from a rules stand point where Pilot vs. System doesn't make sense. It's streamlined as can be, two types of attributes make sense and two are provided. It might be late but I can't think of why you would need another type, and can only see a terribly broken system if one was removed. The designers wanted to draw a line between drones and commlinks and have done so by creating Pilot and System. What's not streamlined?
The key is that a drone Pilot doesn't take resources, the response isn't lowered automatically. Therefore we aren't dealing with a System running a dedicated Agent to provide the Pilot rating, but instead a specialized type of OS that is essentially a Pilot only. There is nothing in the book that says a Program will run on a drone Pilot, save Autosofts which can only be run by Pilots. So why should you be able to? Any precieved balance or flavor reasons aside I don't see anything that says you should be able to run anything other than Autosofts on a node with a Pilot rating. Please quote the rule if I'm wrong. An Agent has a Pilot rating, and it can USE programs, but it and any programs it is using are on a commlink according to the section.
This all makes sense to me from a balance stand point as well. A hacker can feed his drones the best commands he can think of, come up with complex behavior patterns and contingencies, but can't load an Agent on it to act as a "Monkey with a Hammer" as the recent commercial shows so graphically. He has to moniter it from the outside and when it gets away from him he has to deal with the reality that it may be taken over and used against him without his knowing.
Everything has a commlink type device in it nowadays (your gun, coat, cyberarm, etc.), except those devices that are made to think for themselves to perform that function (like a drone). I don't see from a rules stand point where Pilot vs. System doesn't make sense. It's streamlined as can be, two types of attributes make sense and two are provided. It might be late but I can't think of why you would need another type, and can only see a terribly broken system if one was removed. The designers wanted to draw a line between drones and commlinks and have done so by creating Pilot and System. What's not streamlined?
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| btw, a drone pilot is the only matrix entity (if one can call it that) able to use autosoft iirc. |
you sure about that? i'm pretty sure it works for anything with a pilot rating. which means pilots, IC, and agents could all use it, theoretically.
though it is certainly a great deal less efficient to use agents or IC.
I think you're right about that. It doesn't say "Drone Pilot" it says "Pilot", so I suppose an Agent could load an Autosoft just like it could a program. What it would do with it would be up to how far you read into the rules.
| QUOTE (otakusensei) |
| I think you're right about that. It doesn't say "Drone Pilot" it says "Pilot", so I suppose an Agent could load an Autosoft just like it could a program. What it would do with it would be up to how far you read into the rules. |
autosoft + command program = remotely controlled goodness. well... mediocrity anyways. in a less-effective-than-a-drone-pilot sort of way, that is.
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Jan 11 2007, 01:12 AM) | ||
The only one here who is obsessed by "Pilot=System+Agent" is Serbitar. The RAW clearly isn't, as it goes the other way round. So it's like with most imaginary problems - they only exist if you want them to. |
To state it more clearly: My problem is, that there is not a pure AI rating thing (however you call it) but a thing that includes System along with the Ai stuff (Pilot) and even System and Firewall (Agent) AND that this System + AI thing (called Pilot) is even used as an OS (for whatever reason).
I say again: Just replacing the rigger/hacker attributes/skills with the agents stats and let everything else be the same is the natural solution. No "this node is run by a pilot OS and has now special rules" nonsene. Thats what I called anti streamlined some posts ago.
| QUOTE (otakusensei) |
| Here's a question. Per the rules as you understand them, can you plug your datajack into a drone and use it as a commlink? |
Yes, its a node. You can use every node as a comlink.
But where does it say that every node is a commlink and a drone is a node? That's what's important. You are assuming that a drone can be used as a commlink, that a Pilot has all the functions of System, and I haven't found anything in the rules to back that up. Agents seem like the exception rather than the rule because they are in a System already.
If all that is true, if a drone Pilot has all the functions of a System, then why doesn't your character write a Pilot for his commlink to replace the System rating? Basically throw out the OSes listed in the Matrix section and write a drone pilot based off an Agent program. That way he would have a commlink with a dedicated Agent that never lowers responce. How broken is that? Sure it's an assumption, but so is saying that a drone pilot has all the standard System functions.
You see, if it's true that a Pilot can't do the things a System can do then they are two separate things and there is no streamlining problem. No more than saying magic is lame because they didn't just make one kind of magic user that does everything. Diversity, man. It's good for you, makes things interesting.
If all that is true, if a drone Pilot has all the functions of a System, then why doesn't your character write a Pilot for his commlink to replace the System rating? Basically throw out the OSes listed in the Matrix section and write a drone pilot based off an Agent program. That way he would have a commlink with a dedicated Agent that never lowers responce. How broken is that? Sure it's an assumption, but so is saying that a drone pilot has all the standard System functions.
You see, if it's true that a Pilot can't do the things a System can do then they are two separate things and there is no streamlining problem. No more than saying magic is lame because they didn't just make one kind of magic user that does everything. Diversity, man. It's good for you, makes things interesting.
Please read the discussion above where Rotbart successfully argues that Pilots have/are System. He quotes RAW.
| QUOTE (otakusensei) |
| You are assuming that a drone can be used as a commlink, that a Pilot has all the functions of System, and I haven't found anything in the rules to back that up. |
Then re-read the first section about Pilot.
| QUOTE (otakusensei) |
| If all that is true, if a drone Pilot has all the functions of a System, then why doesn't your character write a Pilot for his commlink to replace the System rating? |
Because it isn't cheap and allows orders being spoofed to that comlink.
Still, there are times you want to do this, indeed.
| QUOTE (otakusensei) |
| That way he would have a commlink with a dedicated Agent that never lowers responce. |
The whole point about Agents is not having one run on you hardware, but rather having many running out there in the wild, doing your bidding.
how does the saying go? mountains out of anthills?
There is one line at the end of the first paragraph about how Pilot functions like System, but the context lends more to tests that require System than implying a full suite of commlink type functions. Common sense also applies. If everything has a wireless device, and every wireless device has a device rating, and the device rating acts as System, and everything that has System has commlink functions, why sell commlinks? You already have one if you're standing there wearing nothing but your skivvies.
It was pretty clear to me that when they talked about Personas and Programs they were talking about your Commlink. They then went on to mention these other devices like drones. Why make up fluff for commlink operating systems and commlinks if there is an unnamed, unspecified device that does the same thing already in your beer glass? You can say it's a mistake on thier part, but I'd be more included to say you might be wrong in your assumtion that commlink functions extend to everything with a System rating.
It was pretty clear to me that when they talked about Personas and Programs they were talking about your Commlink. They then went on to mention these other devices like drones. Why make up fluff for commlink operating systems and commlinks if there is an unnamed, unspecified device that does the same thing already in your beer glass? You can say it's a mistake on thier part, but I'd be more included to say you might be wrong in your assumtion that commlink functions extend to everything with a System rating.
There is one line at the end of the first paragraph about how Pilot functions like System, but the context lends more to tests that require System than implying a full suite of commlink type functions. Common sense also applies. If everything has a wireless device, and every wireless device has a device rating, and the device rating acts as System, and everything that has System has commlink functions, why sell commlinks? You already have one if you're standing there wearing nothing but your skivvies.
It was pretty clear to me that when they talked about Personas and Programs they were talking about your Commlink. They then went on to mention these other devices like drones. Why make up fluff for commlink operating systems and commlinks if there is an unnamed, unspecified device that does the same thing already in your beer glass? You can say it's a mistake on thier part, but I'd be more included to say you might be wrong in your assumtion that commlink functions extend to everything with a System rating.
It was pretty clear to me that when they talked about Personas and Programs they were talking about your Commlink. They then went on to mention these other devices like drones. Why make up fluff for commlink operating systems and commlinks if there is an unnamed, unspecified device that does the same thing already in your beer glass? You can say it's a mistake on thier part, but I'd be more included to say you might be wrong in your assumtion that commlink functions extend to everything with a System rating.
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| how does the saying go? mountains out of anthills? |
Molehills.
Wish I could take the long view, as a GM with very active PCs I spend most of my time looking up from ground level...
Na anyways, I ve stated what I dont like in RAW and how I think it can be done better conceptually as well as practically.
| QUOTE (otakusensei) |
| There is one line at the end of the first paragraph about how Pilot functions like System, but the context lends more to tests that require System than implying a full suite of commlink type functions. |
No, it doesn't speak of tests only...
| QUOTE (otakusensei) |
| Common sense also applies. |
Common sense tells you that the world is flat...
| QUOTE (otakusensei) |
| If everything has a wireless device, and every wireless device has a device rating, and the device rating acts as System, and everything that has System has commlink functions, why sell commlinks? |
Because of the nice interfaces. Just because people can install an OS on their Toaster doesn't mean they want to use it to work...
Don't agents put the same limitations on programs that they run that the system stat does? Seems to me that is all they are saying when a pilot has a system stat, is that the rating of the pilot program limits program ratings the same way system does. They aren't saying it is an OS like you would install on a commlink.
Yeah, lets have multiple instances of game terms that all mean something different.
I ended up rewriting so much of the computer stuff that I almost get depressed sometimes when I look at the regular rules. It can be so much simplier and do all the things that they are wanting it to do. It can actually be balenced as well.
oh, well.
I made the drones use the same basic commlink set up but it had a different variety of OS. I made the Pilot program and the Agent the same thing. It has a firewall that would be high and have a list of actions that it won't take. It has a high security rating as well (this pertains to my system in which security represents how restrictive the environment is). It can't add more then the one communications subscription and that is hardwired. Basically you can't hack it - you have to hack the security spider instead. However if you do then you can route your spoofs through there and the drone can't do anything about it.
oh, well.
I made the drones use the same basic commlink set up but it had a different variety of OS. I made the Pilot program and the Agent the same thing. It has a firewall that would be high and have a list of actions that it won't take. It has a high security rating as well (this pertains to my system in which security represents how restrictive the environment is). It can't add more then the one communications subscription and that is hardwired. Basically you can't hack it - you have to hack the security spider instead. However if you do then you can route your spoofs through there and the drone can't do anything about it.
| QUOTE (Garrowolf) |
| It can be so much simplier and do all the things that they are wanting it to do. It can actually be balenced as well. |
..from what you posted, it just doesn't sound so.
Alright, I've taken this one to the game table and I have to ask again.
Why do you think a Pilot can do the same as a System?
The way I ended up reasoning is that the Pilot is a System that has a dedicated user. Therefore it can do things a System can do (limited by the dog brain) but you can't just plug in and get a Persona anymore than someone could do that to your commlink while you're in VR.
It fits with the rules as written, and it makes balenced game sense. Sorry for opening this can of worms again but I can't let it sit so broken.
Why do you think a Pilot can do the same as a System?
The way I ended up reasoning is that the Pilot is a System that has a dedicated user. Therefore it can do things a System can do (limited by the dog brain) but you can't just plug in and get a Persona anymore than someone could do that to your commlink while you're in VR.
It fits with the rules as written, and it makes balenced game sense. Sorry for opening this can of worms again but I can't let it sit so broken.
| QUOTE (otakusensei) |
| Why do you think a Pilot can do the same as a System? |
P. 214
"Pilot
is used in place of System for vehicles, drones, and agents, but
otherwise has the same
function as System."
The question was context based. Does that statement cover ALL uses of the System rating, or just situations where the node with a Pilot rating needs to make a test as though the node had a System?
The difference is a Pilot equipped drone that you can plug into and use as a commlink vs. a Pilot equipped drone that offers System like functions to it's dog brain but not to anyone who plugs into it.
The difference is a Pilot equipped drone that you can plug into and use as a commlink vs. a Pilot equipped drone that offers System like functions to it's dog brain but not to anyone who plugs into it.
Coming to this thread late...my apologies.
I see a couple options to make a rigger feel more secure:
1) Turn off wi-fi. This obviously won't work in all situations, but if you can program a list of commands for the drone to follow, you can upload it, then turn off wi-fi and let it run the program. I can think of this being useful if its guarding something or monitoring an area. Included in the commands could certainly be turning on the wi-fi and sending a status to the rigger. That way, the hacker only has a slim window in which to work, if they are going to take your drone. And, if the commands are pretty basic, then its dog-brain shouldn't have much trouble following...
2) If you must keep the wi-fi on, you can also have the drones protocol to transmit every command it is performing back to you and/or a status report. Granted, a hacker could still get in your drone, but this way, you have a couple failsafes. One, its sending you a copy of every command, so if it starts doing something "different" you could figure out somethings up. Two, if the hacker gets in and notices the transmission back to you, then that is an extra step she's gonna have to go through to spoof or edit, before it gets sent back.
So, I would feel comfortable with either of these methods, in different circumstances. I'd just get the drones firewall as high as possible and use these handshaking methods to keep you privvy to unwanted hackers in your drones...
Hopefully I didn't repeat anything already talked about in length.
I see a couple options to make a rigger feel more secure:
1) Turn off wi-fi. This obviously won't work in all situations, but if you can program a list of commands for the drone to follow, you can upload it, then turn off wi-fi and let it run the program. I can think of this being useful if its guarding something or monitoring an area. Included in the commands could certainly be turning on the wi-fi and sending a status to the rigger. That way, the hacker only has a slim window in which to work, if they are going to take your drone. And, if the commands are pretty basic, then its dog-brain shouldn't have much trouble following...
2) If you must keep the wi-fi on, you can also have the drones protocol to transmit every command it is performing back to you and/or a status report. Granted, a hacker could still get in your drone, but this way, you have a couple failsafes. One, its sending you a copy of every command, so if it starts doing something "different" you could figure out somethings up. Two, if the hacker gets in and notices the transmission back to you, then that is an extra step she's gonna have to go through to spoof or edit, before it gets sent back.
So, I would feel comfortable with either of these methods, in different circumstances. I'd just get the drones firewall as high as possible and use these handshaking methods to keep you privvy to unwanted hackers in your drones...
Hopefully I didn't repeat anything already talked about in length.
Interesting, particularly shutting down wireless. Follows the rules and doesn't require any particular leaps of reasoning.
The second method of having the Pilot report back I think is covered by the normal operation of the drone. At least, I let my players know it's acting erraticly, if they remeber to tell me they are keeping an eye on their drones log (usually a free action, otherwise a perception test).
Thank you for bringing the post back to it's roots, I think we got a bit sidetracked there and really won't know who was right until Unwired.
See you all back here then?
The second method of having the Pilot report back I think is covered by the normal operation of the drone. At least, I let my players know it's acting erraticly, if they remeber to tell me they are keeping an eye on their drones log (usually a free action, otherwise a perception test).
Thank you for bringing the post back to it's roots, I think we got a bit sidetracked there and really won't know who was right until Unwired.
See you all back here then?
I don't know if I am just adding fuel to the fire or not, but here is the way I see it:
System - an OS that requires input to run programs, edit files, etc., outisde of specific reactive situations (like a hacking attempt triggering an alert)
Pilot - an OS with additional code to decide on it's own what programs to run, what files to edit, etc. when lacking direct input from a user, but limited to the node (drone, commlink, toaster, house security system, whatever) it is installed on, but otherwise is identical to system.
Agent - a program that includes code able to run other programs, edit files, etc. on it's own, when lacking direct input from a user. In effect, it is a self-controlled icon/persona.
As I see it, an agent, when detected has an icon that can be attacked and crashed without affecting the node it is on (be it a commlink or drone brain), but a Pilot (say a drone in this case) when hacked, can be manipulated like a System, assuming you hack the right set of permissions. To defend itself, it would have to launch an Agent (IC in this case) which would have the same affect as a program running on a commlink (reducing Response and or System rating if the total gets to high).
Difference between System and Pilot:
A Pilot can think for itself (better the high it's rating is) and a System cannot (though it can have some basic defense, like launching IC when alerts are triggered)
Difference between Pilot and Agent:
An Agent is like a Persona, free to move from node to node, but a Pilot is like a System, limited to it's one node for operation (but able to subscribe to others to share info) and hackable like a System
All 3 can be Spoofed, assuming have done the required matrix perception test.
Now for the main purpose of the thread, protecting a Drone.
Load an Agent with Analyze and Edit on the drone, with the sole purpose of monitoring the subscribed list and account list for changes and orders to change it back (to whatever you store in it). For high end drones, with high pilot and response, add Stealth and/or Attack so it can remain undetected during a hacking attempt or defend immediately if an alert is triggered.
This won't stop everything (like spoofed orders to the Agent to make the change), but it will alert you and slow attempts to takeover your drones most times.
If nothing else, a hacker would waste some time crashing the Agent (which would alert you) before successfully taking control of the drone from you. It would lessen the number of Autosofts you could run without affecting performance though.
Another possibility, and this limits versitility (but most good security does), require all order changes to be validated by LOS laser communication (requires LOS and an additional action to send the command validation).
System - an OS that requires input to run programs, edit files, etc., outisde of specific reactive situations (like a hacking attempt triggering an alert)
Pilot - an OS with additional code to decide on it's own what programs to run, what files to edit, etc. when lacking direct input from a user, but limited to the node (drone, commlink, toaster, house security system, whatever) it is installed on, but otherwise is identical to system.
Agent - a program that includes code able to run other programs, edit files, etc. on it's own, when lacking direct input from a user. In effect, it is a self-controlled icon/persona.
As I see it, an agent, when detected has an icon that can be attacked and crashed without affecting the node it is on (be it a commlink or drone brain), but a Pilot (say a drone in this case) when hacked, can be manipulated like a System, assuming you hack the right set of permissions. To defend itself, it would have to launch an Agent (IC in this case) which would have the same affect as a program running on a commlink (reducing Response and or System rating if the total gets to high).
Difference between System and Pilot:
A Pilot can think for itself (better the high it's rating is) and a System cannot (though it can have some basic defense, like launching IC when alerts are triggered)
Difference between Pilot and Agent:
An Agent is like a Persona, free to move from node to node, but a Pilot is like a System, limited to it's one node for operation (but able to subscribe to others to share info) and hackable like a System
All 3 can be Spoofed, assuming have done the required matrix perception test.
Now for the main purpose of the thread, protecting a Drone.
Load an Agent with Analyze and Edit on the drone, with the sole purpose of monitoring the subscribed list and account list for changes and orders to change it back (to whatever you store in it). For high end drones, with high pilot and response, add Stealth and/or Attack so it can remain undetected during a hacking attempt or defend immediately if an alert is triggered.
This won't stop everything (like spoofed orders to the Agent to make the change), but it will alert you and slow attempts to takeover your drones most times.
If nothing else, a hacker would waste some time crashing the Agent (which would alert you) before successfully taking control of the drone from you. It would lessen the number of Autosofts you could run without affecting performance though.
Another possibility, and this limits versitility (but most good security does), require all order changes to be validated by LOS laser communication (requires LOS and an additional action to send the command validation).
| CODE |
| Matrix Attributes DR = Device Rating (Universal) default if not customized Vehicle Drone Agents Response (Hardware) DR DR Host Node Signal (Hardware) DR DR Host Node Firewall (Software) DR DR Agent Rating System (Software) Pilot Pilot Pilot(Agent Rating) |
We tried one way that required a bit of modification on the drone; datajack-only connection. Removed the wifi connectivity, any rigging for remote control, and leave it as either autonomous drones or with a really long extended datacable.
It was fun until the GM realized the flying drone had flown and circled around the rigger several times thus choking him.
No hacker could get to it, but the Lightning bolt someone fired into the Doberman did more than just give feedback to the rigger.
It was fun until the GM realized the flying drone had flown and circled around the rigger several times thus choking him.
No hacker could get to it, but the Lightning bolt someone fired into the Doberman did more than just give feedback to the rigger.
a lighting bolt following a fiber cable? thats news to me...
Would path of least resistance follow the non conductive cable to the ground or the non conductive air to the ground?
"Magic did it," was the GM's reply. He reasoned that we used a metallic sheath for the datacable to protect it from easy snapping and cutting attempts.
But it really was just the GM swatting down one of our "brilliant" ideas.
But it really was just the GM swatting down one of our "brilliant" ideas.
here's one:
you can subscribe a group of drones as if they were one drone, provided you are willing to give them orders as a group.
so, let's suppose you subscribe 5 drones as a group. you have each of those check with each other. in order for them to follow an order, all (or a majority) must have received that order.
so, for someone to take over the drones, they have to spoof all 5 (or 3 if you're going with majority rules) drones at the same time... which is going to be just a bit tricky for a single hacker
of course, the drawback is that if someone takes over your commlink you lose 5 drones at a time instead of 1, but then again... if someone has taken over your commlink you're pretty much screwed anyways.
you can subscribe a group of drones as if they were one drone, provided you are willing to give them orders as a group.
so, let's suppose you subscribe 5 drones as a group. you have each of those check with each other. in order for them to follow an order, all (or a majority) must have received that order.
so, for someone to take over the drones, they have to spoof all 5 (or 3 if you're going with majority rules) drones at the same time... which is going to be just a bit tricky for a single hacker
of course, the drawback is that if someone takes over your commlink you lose 5 drones at a time instead of 1, but then again... if someone has taken over your commlink you're pretty much screwed anyways.
Isn't the cost of a pilot listed in the software table as being the same price as an agent? i'm not at home so no books. 
1. Spoof your ID often to reduce Spoofed commands going to your drones.
2. Run your drones in Hidden mode.
3. Get Firewall and Encrypt to Rating 6 fast, and alter your encryption routinely during longer fights.
4. Jammers and ECCM are your friend too.
5. Add independent Agents to your drones if you have few of them, load them on the drones as IC if you have a lot of them.
6. Emergency override/reboot switch can be a lifesaver too. Or you could loose all your drones.
for more in depth thoughts on each:
2. Run your drones in Hidden mode.
3. Get Firewall and Encrypt to Rating 6 fast, and alter your encryption routinely during longer fights.
4. Jammers and ECCM are your friend too.
5. Add independent Agents to your drones if you have few of them, load them on the drones as IC if you have a lot of them.
6. Emergency override/reboot switch can be a lifesaver too. Or you could loose all your drones.
for more in depth thoughts on each:
[ Spoiler ]
| QUOTE (DireRadiant) | ||
|
Now this is something I understand! So for drones, the device rating is 3 (p. 214) and for upgrading
1. a drone you would need to look at tables with response(p. 240), signal(p. 240), firewall(p. 228) and pilot (p. 228 the agent/IC/pilot thing).
2. a commlink or other device you would need to look at tables with response(idem), signal(idem), firewall(idem) and system (p. 228).
3. an agent/IC you need to upgrade the system it is running on for hardware stats and look at tables with agent (p. 228 the agent/IC/pilot thing) for upgrading software stats.
If you code yourself, replace p228 by p240
Thanks DireRadiant, you made my day!
| QUOTE (Marwynn) |
| "Magic did it," was the GM's reply. He reasoned that we used a metallic sheath for the datacable to protect it from easy snapping and cutting attempts. But it really was just the GM swatting down one of our "brilliant" ideas. |
The magic still has the properties of a lightning bolt and thus works like electricity. Metallic sheath is NOT used to protect fiber cables. Kevlar is, and kevlar is non-conductive. He better be glad he is not my GM. The only kevlar that is conductive AFAIK is mettalized kevlar but that isn't used for fiber cable.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.