I've never known that much about drone rigging since 4th came along. Things have changed quite a bit, in part because of wireless. Wireless hacking has changed a lot of things and hacking to get control of a rigged vehicle/drone/system is now an interesting goal to have.

Question is: how would you build a drone hacker?

Of course you need a ridiculously good comm, and all the counter-counter-measures you can put your hands on. Plus a bunch of high-level programs, and some decent hardware and stuff like that, on top of hacking skills. You could have a few drones too, but not too many points will remain if a character is to be focused strickly on hacking drones, which has to be done on site, within signal range.

Has anyone tried that before? I was wondering because it crossed my mind that such a character could exist, but I'm not that great at building a hacker/rigger and I wanted to run this idea by people who might.

Hacking drones sounds like fun, but you better hope the riggers do not use encryption, otherwise it could take forever (at least when you do it during combat, that is, otherwise it works just fine, of course).

Bye
Thanee

Drone Hacker:

Base Skillset
Electronic Warfare (Communications)
Hacking (Spoof Command)
Computer (Edit)
Gunnery (Ballistic)
Groundcraft (Remote Operations)
Aircraft (Remote Operations)

That’s basically what one needs for stealing drones. EW is most important for out of combat stealing as you can intercept wireless signals and edit them so that you can insert your own commands and rewrite their subscription list.

Spoofing is for the combat when you need to fool the drone quickly. Gunnery and the vehicle skills can be altered depending on what kind of drone user you will be. Computer and edit actions are for when you have hacked them and gained a “legal” account in their node.

Get 2 commlinks. One for hacking and one as your firewall with multiple layers of IC and defenses.

Commlink 1 sets signal to 0 and connects to the matrix through commlink 2 with legal access with its commcode. Only way to commlink 1 is to go through the firewall of 2 and then hack all over again to commlink 1.

Who said anything about daisychain?

The important point is that Commlink 2 is NOT subscribed to commlink 1 and vice versa.

All you use is a legal access to commlink 2 with commlink 1 as an access point to the matrix, nothign more, just a router, but not subscription to share data.

Well, in my case i meant i as a wired medium. There is no wi-fi information going from A-B but either 2 cybernetic commlinks and hardware link or by fiberoptic cable.

If they hack the outer commlink and the outer one is subscribed to the inner one then they would have the easy access to the inner commlink once they exploit into the outer commlink as far as I can figure. The passcode is all fine and good but would apply to all traffic since there are not currently multiple levels of subscribed access. You either are, or are not.

Secondly if the inner commlink has access to the outside world they could hack it directly. The first thing I'd do as an intruder is hack into the outer one, from there pass via the subscribed device into the inner one and command it to turn the wireless on. Then I could hack into it directly while staying in the first, outer node.

Sure you could eject the intruder but how often do you check th status of your wireless especially when it is set to not update your image link with its status. In the end you have the same level of susceptibility as a single commlink system.

If putting all of the teams commlinks behind yours you could man it actively and make it harder to stealth through it.

Ok, first check page 215 on "Passcodes" in SR4. Anyone can limit access to a node through passcodes and linked passcodes.

Firewall B acts as a chokepoint, one cannot go through B without either using the right passcode or hacking it.

So, IF someone has a chokepoint chain of 50 commlinks with 50 different linked passcodes to the other nodes one HAS to hack each and every one of them unless you have each and every code.

They cannot hack commlink A since it doesnt emitts a signal, they can however hack B since that's the signal they find and knows that A's Commcode uses B as a node to skip through to the matrix.

There are already rules for limited access to nodes and that's the Passcode section in SR 4, subscription is for nodes to share data, or more specifically, for one node to manipulate data in another node. Without subscription you just use a node to relay a signal, but id doesn't mean that anyone trying to access the node has a legal access to go through it, unlike what public nodes have.

My point is that Node B has several agents and runs constant analyze checks against intrusion and will hopefully find anyone trying to hack B. Comm A can focus on being loaded with offensive programs and won't have to bother too much with defense (sure, matrix attacks can happen when the PERSONA is in another node but hackign attempts against the comm is rather safer.

The game rules are an abstraction. The Matrix rules moreso than usual. Within any abstraction, you're going to be able to just *say* you do something outside the rules that the game presents. Even if this seems like a sensible and reasonable thing to do in the game WORLD, it is not part of the GAME. If the abstraction is complete, there is a reasonable chance that what you are attempting to do is covered by an existing rules concept. If it isn't, then it probably should be.

A trite example for clarity. I describe to my players a tough-looking foe in a clearly heavily armoured duster. Being armed only with light pistols, my players are worried they won't be able to penetrate his armour. They can, however, see his head clearly, and my samurai says "OK, I shoot him in the face."

It's a perfectly reasonable thing for a crack gunman to do in the circumstances. But he can't, the reason being that the armour rules are abstract and it is assumed that people firing guns aim at whatever target they see fit. In fact, there is a specific abstraction for this; a called shot. It doesn't automatically make my player hit this tough guy in the head, but it models it OK.

What you are doing, Jopp, is exactly what my player wanted to do. He's stepping outside the rules of the game and doing something that seems sensible in the world, but is actually completely illegal in the game. Just like combat would be retarded if everyone could just choose to plug their targets in the head, the Matrix would be retarded if everyone could just choose to chain themselves behind a hundred "repeater" nodes filled with a thousand duplicated agents.

So what do we do? We find an abstraction that makes things playable. Routing yourself through other nodes (regardless of whose) and disguising who you are sounds like Stealth to me. Setting up additional layers of protection sounds like Firewall. Choose whatever rationalisation you want.

Maybe you should be able to make some kind of skill test to see how well you can overchargge your defenses in a pinch, but that's an issue for Unwired.

For GMs and players alike the lesson is: If it's not covered by a rule, it sounds too easy, it sounds powerful, and most importantly the world wouldn't work if it really was like that... Then it isn't. RPGs have a great degree of freedom when it comes to actions, but you've got to make sure you're still playing the game.

In what way do I go around the rules when it is the exact way a corporation would set up chokepoints with multiple wired nodes in a building and one wireless access to the outside?

You don't.

Actually, the setup for my SR4 character is one implanted commlink with wireless and skinlink, running only programs needed for electronic warfare and IC and an implanted commlink without any external connection running only programs needed by the persona.

Why not the following: u can route your comlink like jopp describes it, but with every node between your primary comlink and the public nodes your response goes down by one.
This would stop 50+ comlink abuse and would also refer to reality. You can already go through servers that hide your true identity today, but it makes you damn slow...

Also, Corps wouldnt use Comlinks as nodes but hosts, which have virtually no limits in response or system attributes (for game purposes capped at 7), and where precisely does it say that the Corps dont do exactly that? They did in SR3 and in my games they still do that in SR4, so Jopps idea sounds perfectly plausible to me.

One thing to remember is that it isn't broken because IF someone hacks commlink B the main commlink (A) will not be armed with any defensive countermeasures.

The main point for this is to free up program slots for hackign and not having to boost defenses against hacking intrusion - but once they have cracked that the hacker better be prepared to load up defensive programs.

and hey, when the hacker has to go through 5000 nodes before he gets to anything even remotely significant, that'll be fun, right?

Narmio, I respectfully disagree.

If i had used commlinks linked together through WIRELESS means then i agree that you only have to pick the right signal in order to find and hack the final commlink. In this example we have a WIRED access that is protected by a linked passcode for legal access.

PUBLIC nodes out on the matrix is a skip-through-for-all but in this case we are talking about PRIVATE nodes that can be protected by passcodes, linked passcodes or heck, even hardware key access and also being WIRED to the node that has a wi-fi connection.

Yes, if someone hacks a commlink they gain access to whatever is subscribed to it but there IS NO SUBSCRIPTION.

If a subscription was needed in order to access a node then EVERY damn node one skips through on the matrix would have to be subscribed to the commlink while you are there and that cannot have been the intent of the rules.

I could do the same with a team of commlinks. Think about it. Five hackers that have one commlink each. Hacker 1 have 1 access code for each other team member, they in turn have one LINKED passcode to hacker 1. Each hacker have 1 code for one of the other members and one must log on to the commlinks in order: 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 etc.

Now, if they go wireless you have no problem of finding hacker 1 through wireless interception. If they, on the other hand is linked through fibreoptic wire then there is a problem.

FINDING his node is no problem, a Track action will reveal that he is at location X and that in order to reach that one you have to go through four wired nodes.

You CANNOT hack Hacker 1 before hacking 2-5 since you need access to the wired network through commlink 5.

Now, enlighten me please how this would be different from having a building with 1 wireless access and 4 wired chokepoints of nodes before you get to the last wired node with the data you intend to steal.

Do you seriously believe that just because the last node is accessing the matrix that you can hack it without entering the buildings wired network and hack each node.

If you do then I seriously believe that your GM will disagree with you.

The entire POINT with wired networks of nodes is that you HAVE to hack them in order to get through to the deeper layered ones.

Jopp, I'm not opposed to what you're saying... really I'm not. I do, however, have trouble following the logic of how an intruder is choked at the chokepoint. Here is my understanding and maybe you can let me know where my logic breaks down or what pieces I'm missing because I'd like to have your perspective.

The games I'm in almost always allow realism/sophistication in the matrix end of the game but I'm having trouble following your logic. Whether it does or doesn't stick 100% to RAW isn't a concern to me but the logical presentation of the method does concern me as I'd like to include chokepoints in a logical fashion in my own games.

I'm gonna give this in terms of premises to keep it as cogent as possible:

1. Hacking from a commlink requires a matrix connection.
2. Wired, Wireless, whichever the method its still the same ability to carry a data stream including the same vulnerabilities.
3. The hacker is not entering the passcode each and every time they do an action. They are entering it once and thats it.
4. Both outgoing and incoming data streams continue a-ok once they have are authenticated via passcode allowing continuous data exchange with the outside world. Meaning that the hacker doesnt lose his connection when out in the general matrix. In other words the legit hacker isn't choked on incoming or outgoing matrix traffic.
5. To me this describes Encryption, not a Passcode. A Passcode would be a physically entered key like a biometric scan only with a passcode more like a sophisticated PIN number or other password-like entry a bajillion characters long.

As you describe these sorts of Chokepoints they don't seem to me to stop matrix traffic. They are set to disallow matrix traffic that lacks the passcode and the Exploit program and the Hacking skill include forging authentication and legitimate access where things don't use encryption. Where encryption *is* used the time must be taken to decrypt it in the presence of the encrypted icon/data stream/whatever is encrypted.

Let me reiterate that I'm not at all against the concept merely that I'm having trouble following the logic. My understanding of how the matrix and matrix traffic work is that you are describing encryption which would require an intruder to exploit into the outer node then spend time decrypting the inner node. To deviate from this with some other mechanic to delay the intruder doesn't seem valid but my ears are open to understanding pieces I may be missing or misunderstanding.

I think you understand it perfectly, except the password part. Check out page 215 for Passcodes (Authorized Access), that explains a lot of my reasoning. You can have public nodes (webpages/forums) that requires passwords to enter and that means that some nodes MUST be hacked unless you have the correct passcode.

Exploit and hacking is needed to get through and that was the main point, to buy time because you must start hacking a lot earlier, in a node designed for intrusion defense where you have multiple agents/IC that runs constant Analyze tests for just that event instead of the node you WANT to hack.

Its main strength is that you cannot HACK the main commlink directly. SR4 requires you to have access to the Node in order to hack it and unless it has its own signal you must be inside the node that provides it with a matrix connection.

In order to reach the first Node you must get through the router (commlink 2) Yes, it allows data traffic from the main commlink but also ONLY for that commcode. Any other Commcode, persona, icon or agent needs a passcode to get inside, and the main commlink must verify it with another code.

Once that commlink HAS been hacked it’s no biggie to hack the second one – but it requires a second hacking test.

Oh, just thought on something else, these are the layers of defense in this case:

Hidden Signal
Encrypted Signal
Linked Password (Legal Access to B)
Commlink B
Password (Legal Access to A)
Commlink A

The above buys time and increases the risk for someone trying to hack from B to A getting caught.

References:
Network Security (Page 223 SR4)
Hacking and Accounts (Page 221 SR4)
Authorized Access (Page 215 SR4)

u can take an example from reallife:

if a hacker attacks your Computer some firewalls offer the option to diplay the hackers id. However this id is an ip of the hackers ISP, in order to identify the hacker u have to ask the service provider to tell you who had this ip at the time of the attack, or you hack the ISP Server.

Same goes for comlinks, do not assume that everybodys comlink is a router for everybody elses comlink, that would be to much traffic for any wireless device , dedicated satellites excluded. Wireless comunication requires a wired infrastructure like cellular phones do today.
This infrastrcture includes Server (hosts) that forward the requests to the net (basically other servers) and will also forward the results of your request back to your computer (comlink). A command or code and even an attack is such a request.

The big difference between a comlink and a host is that a host is basically a server (it serves information), which is why u can hack it from the net, a comlink however does not serve information to the net, so in order to hack it u would either hack its ISP first to get to it, or you attack it directly by intercepting and spoofing its wireless signals with next infrastructure antenna.

right... so what you're saying is that i can buy myself some RFID tags (1 nuyen per 20) a firewall program (rating 6, of course) for 3,000 nuyen, and use an encrypt program (we'll assume rating 5 for chargen, so 500 nuyen) on all of those RFID tags... oh, and add in the cost of some fiberoptic cable (however much it is, i doubt that it's much more expensive than, say, myomeric cable... 20 nuyen per meter...)

the result? anyone who wants to hack my commlink has to go through some stupidly large number of encrypted firewall 6 RFIDs (i assume device rating of 1 otherwise... arguably, stealth and security tags should be higher). heck, why not run an analyse program on it to increase it's dicepool... not that it matters.

the important thing is that you're eventually going to glitch or critically glitch, no matter how big your dice pool is, because i can make you hack into 500 nodes before you get into my actual commlink. and sooner or later, if i set up enough nodes, you'll get detected. it will happen at some point or another.

of course, on the other hand, no company, no matter how much of a cheapskate they are, is going to have anything less defending their nodes... i mean, it's costing *maybe* as much as 300 nuyen for some crazy impenetrable defense hardware, and the software can conveniently be copied as much as they like. even if they don't own a legitimate master copy, you can bet there are matrix security companies offering their services who will... so you can forget about hacking anything, pretty much, because it just isn't going to happen.

That's correct. See the black box on p. 223.

Wrong, RFID are powered by wireless, they are offline without it, secondly you would have to hardwire them, which should prove quite challenging, since it is a closed circuit with microscopic (possibly nanoscopic) scale.

Sure, I see how you're explaining it now. I usually sit ont he LTG or on the matrix gateway outside the host waiting for intruders like a bouncer outside his nightclub but sure, you could have a second host and then require a passcode/passkey/exploit test to gain access. Of course, once you auithenticate you're immune to being detected as an intruder unless additional monitoring/measures are taken. If you hack in as Security access or Admin access you just create a legit account, backdate its creation, and then log out of the exploited access and log in using legit access. Then you're no longer in danger of being discovered in that node and can even dump the sprites in the other node by killing its matrix connection. I dont see a huge advantage but I'll concede that it's valid according to RAW.

In the end it makes an intruder no less able to screw the contents up and makes the defenders have to spread out more. If access were ALWAYS challenged for authentication at a chokepoint the delay created might make for good detection but as you describe it I'm not so convinced it'd be a deterrant to a hacker or even do more than slow them down a tad. Heck, take over the first (outer) node and then use it to determine all the passcodes coming in so you gather them all up. I wonder how many folks use the same passcode in multiple nodes. For that matter gather up the biometric signals and reproduce their retinal/finger prints by uploading them from saved copies as often as you like. At worst you might have to edit them in to bypass temp sensors on palm readers, etc.

What sort of Build/Repair roll is necessary for a homemade, hardwired RFID that already costs less than a small fry at McSoyShack? Maybe 2 hits?

I was just pointing out that RFIDs are a poor example.

Wasabi:

Just one example, hacker A pissed off hacker B in the matrix, so hacker B tries to locate his meat to send over his pals. he succeeds until he reaches the host of hacker As ISP. In order to triangulate hacker A he has to hack into the ISP for security rights (+3). The big problem is that it is a F**CKING ISP host, meaning it will be controlled pretty good, because ISPs know that there are hackers and in fact these are what they dislike the most. Once hacker B has succeeded he can try to hack hacker As commlink.

Chaining commlinks will not stop other hackers but will slow them down and increase the chance that they fail. Chaining should be capped by response though.

Another problem i find much more disturbing is layered encryption.
The setup:
H:Hacker
D:drone
commlink HA: encryption A wired to
commlink HB: encryption B connects wireless to

commlink DB: decryption B wired to
commlink DA: decryption A

normaly u just juggle the encrypted code around until it makes sense, which wont work here because code B never makes sense because it is still encrypted...

so while normal decryption takes "encryption rating x 2, 1 Combat turn) to break this encryption i would suggest "encryption rating x 2², 1 Combat turn).

In order to hack my commlink, first you must hack.... Every single one of these toasters I am carrying! Ahahaha!

Incidentally, they also give some impact armour. And wonderful mid-fight snacking opportunities.

Seriously, guys, stop and think for a moment what this will do to the game. Jopp, you're describing a very specific two-commlink setup, but the rules you're claiming for it cover a million RFID tags or a bandolier of kitchen appliances just as easily.

My experience is that, when the proverbial excreta impacts with the ventilation, players start looking for an edge. Maybe he'll want to route his hax through another comm, then after the dust has settled, what motivation has he got to go back to two? Three? Four?

Unhackable hackers versus unhackable corporate facilities? Millions of nodes to game with? Do you actually want to do this?

Although it could be house ruled differently using a Trace program does indeed get you the physical jackpoint of the victim. ["Track Action", BBB p219]

The largest vulnerability of a multihost/chained system is locating an intruder. They needn't go to the end of the chain to decrypt. They just have a dozen agents spread through the first three nodes taking as long as they like to decrypt the datastream while the hacker flies cover. If an inner node is being a problem and you have admin rights on a outer node, simply invalidate the other passcodes and let the owner hack his own node. Then as soon he does, manually set off an alarm. Hack his node, initate a reboot, log off, and let him spend his time not taking dumpshock.

Multi-node schemes are colorful but not "all that and a bag of chips".

I think it is save to assume that subscription is only necessary for wireless connected devices. Reallife example: your mobile phones bluetooth headset needs to be subscribed to your phone, while your cable headset does not.

Narmio: go ahead with your toasters, just make sure the power cable is long enough..
But seriously if a GM allows chaining and i see no reason not to, he should also cap it.

Wasabi: i dont understand what you mean.. mind to elaborate?

maeel:
What I'm saying is that if an intruder wants to listen in he can do it anywhere along the 'pipe' and the 'pipe's length aids the intruder.

Ok, i think i know what you mean, keep in mind my example only applies to connections between two identical chains.
The point i was trying to make is that multilayered encryption poses a much bigger problem in game terms than chaining does. Theoretically you could simply run two encryption programs on one commlink. The time to decrypt does not increase linear with the layers of encryption, but possibly exponentialy if not worse.
if allowed by the GM this has to capped (system? response?)

A hacker is limited in how many programs can be loaded at once but a TM isn't limited on how many Complex Forms he can load at once. ACK!

A TM could compile a sprite to use its hash power...

the thing is, there are no rules given for tiered networks, or chokepoints, or anything like that. so far as we know, that could just as easily be an explanation of the difference between a node with firewall 1 and a node with firewall 6, rather than actually being represented by actual nodes.

and making stuff effectively unhackable is a problem with the game. arguing otherwise is like arguing that since a critter with immunity to normal weapons can still be harmed by magic, it wouldn't be unbalancing to the game if you just handed it out to everyone.

just because you can do other things to an unhackable node doesn't make it acceptable that the node is hackproof.

I do agree that it opens up a can of worms in regard to the endless node hacker with X amount of tiered commlinks that he has hidden about his person, but that is just ONE possible way of upping the defense.

Lets look at it from another view then, you skip the tiered node setup and just get 1+ extra commlinks with agents in it. They are all on standby and watch your commlink for intrusion 24/7 and runs constant Analyze too see if someone is stupid enough to hack it.

That is a perfectly valid wireless defence since your commlink is fully hackable but you have 4+ extra Analyze checks at the moment of intrusion and whoever hacked it will most likely be spotted.

We have then skipped the “extra” commlink but added a larger amount of agents from commlinks with a signal setting of zero which gives them an effective range of 0-3 meters so whoever hacks you wont pick up their signal,but they can connect to your commlink.

Add also that the agents have secondary offensive programs...