Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What can be hacked?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Zace66
Im new rto SR4, and was looking for a simple list of what can and cannot be hacked. Reading the rules just doesnt give me the flavour I need.

Cheers.
ornot
Technically anything electronic can be hacked. A better question is "what can you do with hacked stuff?"

Some GMs might allow you to turn off a Sam's 'ware or create AR illusions; whereas others make their cybered NPCs virtually unhackable. There are many threads floating about involving stuff like daisy chaining commlinks, but I find that all a bit irritating.
The Jopp
Basically everything with a signal and any kind of wireless hardware.

Commlinks
Vehicles
Drones
Kitchen appliances
RC toys
Clothes (the ones with electronics weaved into them)
Guns (If wireless is active)

As long as someone has a something that is either connected to the matrix or has a Wi-Fi connection and emits a signal then it can be hacked IF it allows incoming signals, it could just be a transmitter and it’s kinda hard to hack those.

In some cases a hands-on approach might be needed (opening their electronic guts) but that is more of a hardware approach than hacking.
The Jopp
Although anything can be hacked and as Ornot says that there are many ways to make a hacker or NPC almost unhackable there is always a way.

Wireless interception.

The above tactic can strip away almost ANY defense since it basically steps around them and listen in and edits the data stream in the signal instead of inside the node. As I play a hacker I’ve realized that it is a very good tactic for those that mine for information for the run and goes for the intelligence angle of the hacker, yet, it feels a bit too easy.

Anyone has a way around it, or make it a bit harder (yes, im asking you to make it harder for ME since it made the last run a bit too easy)

The only thing I can think of is to switch signal/commlink or commcode with a redirect action but im a bit unsure if that would stop someone who’s already ON your signal.
Aaron
QUOTE (The Jopp @ Apr 13 2007, 04:04 AM)
Wireless interception.

The above tactic can strip away almost ANY defense since it basically steps around them and listen in and edits the data stream in the signal instead of inside the node. As I play a hacker I’ve realized that it is a very good tactic for those that mine for information for the run and goes for the intelligence angle of the hacker, yet, it feels a bit too easy.

I don't let my players do anything beyond reading the intercepted wireless signal. The information is traveling at the speed of light, so there just isn't time to edit it in mid-stream (unless one is saving the stream and editing the copy in real-time). Also, intercepting a wireless signal doesn't stop it, so the signal still travels to the intended recipient.
Rotbart van Dainig
Actually, it isn't really a problem to analyse a datastream, find out it's protocol and send false information in advance - including responding to queries. (While radio waves may travel with the speed of light, the information they carry doesn't in an two-way environment. Want to try? Just use your wireless laptop to ping your access point.)
You can even supress information given enough signal strength.

The rules of EW allow quite some leeway and IRL, things are quite a bit more complicated, but they are not entirely stupid.
ornot
The way I read the RAW, you can eavesdrop on traffic by intercepting it, but since it is travelling through the wireless waves around you, you cannot change the signal the target receives. Your commlink is not the only route the traffic is taking.

I think where it mentions editing intercepted signals it refers to the editing of a forwarded signal. Hence intercepting signals is a good way to watch what is going on, but you cannot interact with the traffic, for example changing an order. It might be possible to countermand an instruction sent to a drone by spoofing the drone immediately afterwards, but you wouldn't be able to change the order to command the drone to attack someone other than its intended target.

This might not make a lot of sense, as I'm in a hurry.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (ornot @ Apr 13 2007, 02:53 PM)
The way I read the RAW, you can eavesdrop on traffic by intercepting it, but since it is travelling through the wireless waves around you, you cannot change the signal the target receives. Your commlink is not the only route the traffic is taking.

What RAW are you reading?

QUOTE (SR4v3 @ p. 225, Intercepting Wireless Signals)
To perform an Intercept Wireless Signal action, make an Electronic Warfare + Sniffer (3) Test. Once the signal is intercepted, you can monitor the traffi c and even copy/record/forward it without making any more Intercept Wireless Signal actions. If you want to block out some parts of the traffic or add in your own, you must make an Edit action.
ornot
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)
QUOTE (ornot @ Apr 13 2007, 02:53 PM)
The way I read the RAW, you can eavesdrop on traffic by intercepting it, but since it is travelling through the wireless waves around you, you cannot change the signal the target receives. Your commlink is not the only route the traffic is taking.

What RAW are you reading?

QUOTE (SR4v3 @ p. 225, Intercepting Wireless Signals)
To perform an Intercept Wireless Signal action, make an Electronic Warfare + Sniffer (3) Test. Once the signal is intercepted, you can monitor the traffi c and even copy/record/forward it without making any more Intercept Wireless Signal actions. If you want to block out some parts of the traffic or add in your own, you must make an Edit action.

That's exactly what I read. How nice to know that our books read the same.

You're welcome to interpret that as saying a sniffer program can somehow interupt a wireless signal, but that doesn't make any sense to me.

My interpretation is that a sniffer program allows you to tap into a wireless signal, and can monitor it, copy it, record it or forward it (although why copy it and record it are listed seperately is beyond me). The edit check to change the content applies to the copied, recorded or forwarded signal. Not the original signal, which continues uninterrupted to its destination through the radio waves all around you, unless you somehow find a way of jamming those transmissions.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (ornot)
You're welcome to interpret that as saying a sniffer program can somehow interupt a wireless signal, but that doesn't make any sense to me.

No, but you can supress it.
Which is simply done by broadcasting on the same frequency within the same timeslot... usually with more power to make sure.

Sure, those attacks on low levels are a bit more difficult to pull off, but possible nonetheless... and that's why you use EW and not Hacking.

And no, the editing refers to traffic, which is used as a synonyme for the one on air for the entire section.
kigmatzomat
If it makes you feel better, assume that any 'edit' commands include some form of jamming/data corruption that ensures the data is resent. Packet corruption or loss is pretty common even in wired networks, which is why TCP/IP includes an acknowledgment (ACK) of received packets. Failure to receive the ACK results in the sender resending the original command. Pulling off a man in the middle, where you send a packet failure message will reset the data stream back to the last valid ACK. Depending on the wireless tech, you may not need to do more than simply step on the broadcast frequency and send drek to create a resend situation.
Rotbart van Dainig
Since you are using EW, I would even go as far as stating that it is a level 2 attack.
Wraithshadow
Generally speaking, and this is coming more from a real world perspective than any specific rules, if it's wireless you can probably hack it. This even goes as far as things not on somebody's PAN.

Let's say you've got a hard drive in your pocket. You've severed the link to your comm because you know there's hackers out there. But because my comm's in range I can poke that hard drive and tell it, "Hey- commlink here- you're being accessed." It might have security on it, but if I can convince it I'm okay (bread and butter of hacking) then I've got it. I can do all I want with it. And if it's solid-state, you may never know. If it's a hard drive that actually spins, you might notice the hum and vibration as it kicks up.

Now I could be reading things wrong, but my understanding is that's the way it tends to go. Now, if you're using the bioelectric field on your body rather than a wireless connection, it's not as easy. but, I still just need to get close. Say you've got a very attractive face for the team. She's got the hacker subscribed to her PAN, and he's just sitting there, waiting. Mr. Johnson shows up- she greets him with a smile and a handshake. The hacker now has a connection to Johnson's bioelectric network. That might be severed, but the face plays very nice, and keeps touching Mr. Johnson or keeping her hands near his on the table- he of course doesn't mind this. So long as she can keep her hand near his, the connection stays open- and the hacker should easily be able to deposit a little something on Johnson's commlink to contact his via wireless connection. The face charms some extra nuyen out of the guy, the hacker gets all sorts of info, Mr. Johnson gets not a clue.

And if you think that's the only time that bioelectric can be an issue, just imagine the fun of public transit.

As for traffic, it's not difficult to simply listen in on all traffic around you. Encryption can be an issue, but it's a degradation thing. If you send one encrypted word and that's all I get, I probably won't be able to break the encryption. The more you send, the more I have to work with. And the more I have to work with, the easier it gets to break. A hacker who can listen in to communications over the long term should easily be able to break encryption schemes without ever letting anyone know what he's up to, so long as he doesn't broadcast. A hacker alongside a team of runners that avoid wireless communications (or use an unusual frequency or maybe- if you aren't splitting up- bioelectric fields) can easily keep everyone informed as to just what's going on without the folks they're listening in on ever being the wiser. Unless, say, you go and smile for a security camera.

There's other options out there for communication without wires, but honestly, you're getting down to a basic fact: the easier it is to connect two devices, the more likely you're taking a security risk. Wireless is great if you can't afford to play puppet, but if sticking to fiber (or, heretical as it may be, copper) isn't going to impact your performance, it'll make things much safer.
Eleazar
I try not to relate the Matrix rules to real life. I used to and it really made my head hurt. I find that it helps to only think about the rules at most 2-3 seconds and then just to accept what the books is saying no matter how outrageous it may seem. The rules are made so that people who know absolutely nothing about computers, networking and the OSI model, hacking, cracking, etc. can use the rules. There is a very good reason why the rules sometimes make about as much sense as a Hollywood depiction of hacking. They aren't meant to be realistic. I high recommend anyone to look at Serbitar's Guide to the Matrix. He has done a great job. I personally recommend 0.9 because it gives clarifications to the rules rather than the most recent release 1.1 which changes the rules. He also lists optional and recommended House Rules which are well thought out.
Fastball
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Apr 13 2007, 02:33 PM)
QUOTE (SR4v3 @  p. 225, Intercepting Wireless Signals)
If you want to block out some parts of the traffic or add in your own, you must make an Edit action.

I don't think this leaves any room for doubt that the traffic is the original traffic.

Conceptually, I also don't see why you should be allowed to change it. The edit actions should take place at the exact same time that you are reading the signal. I don't really think you should have time to read and copy it, then change it.

In practice, assume a signal to a drone has been intercepted. After reading it you see it follows a format of authorization code + order. It's too late to change this signal, but for the next signal you can take an edit action, and change the part of the traffic after the authoriztion code to your own instruction.

This interpretation places some limitation upon wireless intercepting without completely disregarding the rules.
Wraithshadow
QUOTE (Eleazar)
I try not to relate the Matrix rules to real life. I used to and it really made my head hurt.

In this, I agree- which is why I didn't try to do just that. wink.gif

At the same time, I'm looking at things in terms of what I know, and how it can be approached. That seems to be the way that a lot of the Shadowrun rules have been set up, as far as hacking goes- there's a lot more attention to the real than there used to be. I don't think I've ever seen a RPG that's done it quite so well- and to that effect, I'm trying to present some basic facts without getting into other details, like why you'd get Mr. Johnson's commlink to contact yours rather than vice versa (for anyone who's unaware, it has to do with firewalls and how they typically work) or other such things. It's a starting point for working things out with your GM, and sort of writing your own Matrix 4.0 book.
coolgrafix
I have to agree with everything ornot has said, though I haven't read the pertinent sections recently. I suppose the rules are written in such a way they are open to misinterpretation, but it seems the intent was not to edit signals en route to a destination, which is impossible in a wireless environment. You aren't Jamming with a Sniffer program, you're Sniffing. Jamming would require a test anyway, plus a device capable of emitting a Jamming signal (a Jammer, if you will <grin>).

The rules make sense in the context of intercepting a signal and then doing whatever you want with it (copy, edit, record, forward, etc.) but the understanding is that the original signal still goes to its original recipient unmolested. You are simply handling a digital copy of a signal.

This would be great for intercepting video feeds, recording them and then editing them (like a loop of an empty elevator) and then feeding it to a sensor somewhere after the fact.
Rotbart van Dainig
The rules are pretty clear on this one.

You can manipulate traffic - change it or supress it.
What you are talking about is manipulation of recording.
Kyoto Kid
...man sometimes I miss die gute alte Tage when a Decker had to jack in to do things like this. The Hacking rules have been streamlined, but the fact that nearly anyone can do it now makes my brain hurt.

Any remote notion of privacy, unless you're a Luddite or hermit living in the mountains or on a desert isle, is basically a thing of the past.

I still have something of an issue with the whole notion of being SINless in a wireless society where everyone needs a commlink to even get a Nukitburger® at the corner Stuffer Shack. The whole idea of being an "invisible" as runners were in the past is pretty much gone and with it some of the mystique that I liked about Shadowrun.

Think I'll go and work on the next segment of my Rhapsody in Shadow (SR3) campaign.

laughingowl
QUOTE
Note that wireless communications are usually encrypted, so you’ll need to decrypt the signal before you can intercept or capture the traffic.



I have always taken that to mean that, the "Electronic Warfare + Sniff er (3) Test." was just to 'tap into' the line so to speak.

If you read:
QUOTE
Intercept Traffic
In order to intercept traffic between any two nodes or users, you must first have access to a node that the traffic passes through. For example, to intercept a comcall between a Mr. Johnson and his lackey, you either need to compromise one of their commlinks or gain access to the Matrix nodes that the comcall passes through (which could be a challenge unto itself ). Note that this action only applies to traffic passing through a wired medium; for wireless traffic, see Intercepting Wireless Signal, p. 225. The gamemaster may also require you to succeed in a Computer + Browse Test to locate the traffic flow you seek to intercept.


It makes it pretty clearn (to me at least) that the 'Intercepting Wireless Signal" is just to get 'access' to the data.


Also Encryption is your friend, and can cut down serioulsly on tapping in.


coolgrafix
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)
The rules are pretty clear on this one.

You can manipulate traffic - change it or supress it.
What you are talking about is manipulation of recording.

But they apparently aren't clear, though, because you still interpret them as meaning that you can capture all signals that are en route to a node in mid-air, edit them, and send them on to their intended destination node, and that's not what they're saying. =) Nor is such a thing even possible on wide-band signals. If the wireless signal was somehow in a tight, highly focused BEAM (e.g. microwave tower), you could at least conceivably put a piece of hardware between the originating node and the receiving node, massage the signal and send it on it's way... but then for all intents and purposes that's not a wireless signal because it is completely analagous to a wired signal at that point.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (coolgrafix)
But they apparently aren't clear, though, because you still interpret them as meaning that you can capture all signals that are en route to a node in mid-air, edit them, and send them on to their intended destination node, and that's not what they're saying.

That's exactly what they are saying, without any interpretation.

Supressing broadcasting signals are things that happen accidentally.
Sure, using that to invade a connection is not a classic man in the middle attack.

But it is theoretically possible, the rules say it's possible, so any discussion is pretty usless as the error correction protocolls used by the wireless matrix on the data link level are unknown.
laughingowl
From my reading of the rules:

To override Attack Bob and change it to Attack Rob

1) Electronic Warfare + Sniffer (3) Test. (to find the wireless signal)
2) (possibly) Decrypt Signal

At this point you can see the data.

3) Computer + Edit Test (to 'block' the legitimate command).
Note: Rules are vague on what is a sucess. I treat this the same as the taping into a line. The number of sucesses is the threshold for the recieving end to notice something funny.

4) Opposed Test between his Sniffer + Hacking and the target’s Firewall + System.
Note: This test is to see if they far end will accept the new command as legitimate.


Note: Almost all of these are complex actions, so trying to overide the commands is going to also introduce delay / lag, which will also likely clue an observant controller that something is going on.


coolgrafix
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Apr 13 2007, 07:10 PM)
That's exactly what they are saying, without any interpretation.

It makes as much sense to think that you can intercept, alter, and then pass on wireless packets between nodes as it does to think that you can intercept, alter, and then pass on SUNLIGHT between the sun and the earth so that no one on earth can see them. It's broadband, there's no way to stop the radiation that you DIDN'T intercept (which would be 99.99% of it) from being received by the intended node without a JAMMER.

Seriously. =)
laughingowl
QUOTE (coolgrafix @ Apr 14 2007, 02:16 AM)
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Apr 13 2007, 07:10 PM)
That's exactly what they are saying, without any interpretation.

It makes as much sense to think that you can intercept, alter, and then pass on wireless packets between nodes as it does to think that you can intercept, alter, and then pass on SUNLIGHT between the sun and the earth so that no one on earth can see them. It's broadband, there's no way to stop the radiation that you DIDN'T intercept (which would be 99.99% of it) from being received by the intended node without a JAMMER.

Seriously. =)

Colografix:

Radio (presumably) waves are waves just like say Sound Waves.

And my Bose headphones are doing a very nice job right now of cancelling out the noise of a very large data center.


Sure modern technology has limits of the 'point of cancellation is very small. (you could make noise cancelling headphones since it can be calculate pretty precisly where your eardrum is, but noise cancelling ball room speakers wouldnt reall work. (though you could calculate a dead spot in the center of the room and create a dead spot there); however, SR isn't modern tech, tech has gone a LONG way, I do not find it to hard to belive that you can 'block' the signal by broadcasting its exact opposite wave form.

If you want to make it closer to 'modern' tech, you could even argue as long as the far end is giving any return signal, that both the destination point and broadcast point are known.

At that point even MODERN tech could calculate what to broadcast to neutralize the waves as the original signal reaches the destination.

Sure modern tech probably couldnt do it FAST enough ... but heck SR aint modern tech


Jamming is exactly what you are doing, but on a very small specific signal. Which is why your signal is strong enough to do it, and you dont need a 'jammer' to do it.

In truth you wouldnt even need to totally override teh signal just enough to garble transmission to unreadable/unidentifable.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (coolgrafix)
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)
That's exactly what they are saying, without any interpretation.

It makes as much sense to think that you can intercept, alter, and then pass on wireless packets between nodes as it does to think that you can intercept, alter, and then pass on SUNLIGHT between the sun and the earth so that no one on earth can see them.

Uh, yeah. Get 'Hacking Wireless Networks for Dummies' and check out page 208ff.
hobgoblin
QUOTE (Kyoto Kid)
...man sometimes I miss die gute alte Tage when a Decker had to jack in to do things like this. The Hacking rules have been streamlined, but the fact that nearly anyone can do it now makes my brain hurt.

Any remote notion of privacy, unless you're a Luddite or hermit living in the mountains or on a desert isle, is basically a thing of the past.

I still have something of an issue with the whole notion of being SINless in a wireless society where everyone needs a commlink to even get a Nukitburger® at the corner Stuffer Shack. The whole idea of being an "invisible" as runners were in the past is pretty much gone and with it some of the mystique that I liked about Shadowrun.

Think I'll go and work on the next segment of my Rhapsody in Shadow (SR3) campaign.

the way i see it is that its one the A and higher areas that insist on you having a SIN and a comlink to get things done. i dont think the certified credstick have vanished, and there is always the possibility to get a fake SIN wink.gif
ornot
QUOTE (hobgoblin)
QUOTE (Kyoto Kid @ Apr 13 2007, 09:28 PM)
...man sometimes I miss die gute alte Tage when a Decker had to jack in to do things like this.  The Hacking rules have been streamlined, but the fact that nearly anyone can do it now makes my brain hurt. 

Any remote notion of privacy, unless you're a Luddite or hermit living in the mountains or on a desert isle, is basically a thing of the past. 

I still have something of an issue with the whole notion of being SINless in a wireless society where everyone needs a commlink to even get a Nukitburger® at the corner Stuffer Shack.  The whole idea of being an "invisible" as runners were in the past is pretty much gone and with it some of the mystique that I liked about Shadowrun.

Think I'll go and work on the next segment of my Rhapsody in Shadow (SR3) campaign.

the way i see it is that its one the A and higher areas that insist on you having a SIN and a comlink to get things done. i dont think the certified credstick have vanished, and there is always the possibility to get a fake SIN wink.gif

I tend to permit a lot of the SINless to use unofficial online banking services. Often run by criminal syndicates. Of course, you don't want to take out a loan and not pay it back...
hobgoblin
QUOTE (ornot)
QUOTE (hobgoblin @ Apr 14 2007, 09:08 AM)
QUOTE (Kyoto Kid @ Apr 13 2007, 09:28 PM)
...man sometimes I miss die gute alte Tage when a Decker had to jack in to do things like this.  The Hacking rules have been streamlined, but the fact that nearly anyone can do it now makes my brain hurt. 

Any remote notion of privacy, unless you're a Luddite or hermit living in the mountains or on a desert isle, is basically a thing of the past. 

I still have something of an issue with the whole notion of being SINless in a wireless society where everyone needs a commlink to even get a Nukitburger® at the corner Stuffer Shack.  The whole idea of being an "invisible" as runners were in the past is pretty much gone and with it some of the mystique that I liked about Shadowrun.

Think I'll go and work on the next segment of my Rhapsody in Shadow (SR3) campaign.

the way i see it is that its one the A and higher areas that insist on you having a SIN and a comlink to get things done. i dont think the certified credstick have vanished, and there is always the possibility to get a fake SIN wink.gif

I tend to permit a lot of the SINless to use unofficial online banking services. Often run by criminal syndicates. Of course, you don't want to take out a loan and not pay it back...

hmm, unofficial banking. yep, could work.

isnt there a real life example in operation in some african nations already?

i kinda recall hearing about it on the news maybe a year or more ago...
coolgrafix
QUOTE
I do not find it to hard to belive that you can 'block' the signal by broadcasting its exact opposite wave form.


It's not hard to believe at it. It's called Jamming. =) And it requires a Jammer, and a Jamming test, which is opposed.

QUOTE

Jamming is exactly what you are doing, but on a very small specific signal.  Which is why your signal is strong enough to do it, and you dont need a 'jammer' to do it.

In truth you wouldnt even need to totally override teh signal just enough to garble transmission to unreadable/unidentifable.


Guys, just because we want this to be possible doesn't mean it is. =) In any event, provided I'm not running games you're playing in, and vice versa, I suppose there's nothing more to say.
Rotbart van Dainig
Actually, you still manage to get it wrong.

Jamming affects either a spectrum or a specific frequency - so everyone in range looses their connection.

Supressing traffic only affects a certain connection - so only the target looses it's connection.


PS: And jamming just happens when the signal strength of the jammer exceeds the signal+eccm of the target.
Wasabi
Unless using a frequency hopping system, yes.
Something better than: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SINCGARS

That all said, its a game. Want realistic? Use Matrix 1.0, map out all the nodes and all the security and have it take 10 years to hack a library. Matrix 4.0 is all about fast and easy to learn so keep that realism stuff in moderation but bend to the need for workable mechanics.

When the SR4 rules *openly* contradict RL its for a reason, silly!
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Wasabi)
Unless using a frequency hopping system, yes.

That's what the Bluetooth consortium thought, too. wink.gif
Wasabi
Is Bluetooth freq hopping? It doesnt use a loadset or freq hop AFAIK.
coolgrafix
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Apr 14 2007, 02:00 PM)
Jamming affects either a spectrum or a specific frequency - so everyone in range looses their connection.

Supressing traffic only affects a certain connection - so only the target looses it's connection.

PS: And jamming just happens when the signal strength of the jammer exceeds the signal+eccm of the target.

Rotbart, there is no such game mechanic as supressing a signal. Only Jamming.

You are correct, though, on the passivity of Jamming. Not opposed in SR4; guess I was thinking SR3, or perhaps just had a memory misfire.

I've gotten my hands on my PDF and have reviewed the SR4 rules regarding this discussion. As a refresher, I'm copying the complete text below. The two actions, Intercept Traffic and Intercept Wireless Traffic, are written in a parallel format, which allows us to easily discern what's doable in a wired intercept versus what's doable in a wireless intercept. You'll note the glaring omission of the passage about inserting your own traffic into the signal on a wireless connection. It doesn't exist, but it does in the wired version, which makes perfect sense because you CAN'T stop and redirect wireless signals with a commlink (you can copy them and edit/redirect the copy). See below...

Intercept Traffic (SR4 p224)

In order to intercept traffic between any two nodes or users, you must first have access to a node that the traffic passes through. For example, to intercept a comcall between a Mr. Johnson and his lackey, you either need to compromise one of their commlinks or gain access to the Matrix nodes that the comcall passes through (which could be a challenge unto itself). Note that this action only applies to traffic passing through a wired medium; for wireless traffic, see Intercepting Wireless Signal, p. 225. The gamemaster may also require you to succeed in a Computer + Browse Test to locate the traffic flow you seek to intercept.

To eavesdrop, make a Hacking + Sniffer Test. The hits you score are the threshold for anyone to detect your tap with a Matrix Perception Test. Taps of this nature are difficult to detect. In order for someone to detect interception of his wired traffic, he must make a Matrix Perception Test in the specific node on which the Sniffer program is running.

Intercepted communications can be copied/recorded without any additional tests. If the hacker wishes to block some parts of the traffic or add in his own, he must make a successful Computer + Edit Test (see Edit, p. 218). If the hacker wants to insert faked traffic, so that it looks like it comes from one party or the other, he must beat the recipient in an Opposed Test between his Sniffer + Hacking and the target's Firewall + System.

Note that some communications may be encrypted. In this case, a Decrypt action (p. 225) is necessary to capture and decode the traffic.

Intercepting Wireless Signals (SR4 p225)

Wireless traffic is broadcast through the air, so anyone within range of a signal can pick it up, whether they are connected to the transmitting party or not. Thus you can eavesdrop on the wireless connections of anyone whose Signal range reaches you. This makes it possible for you to even intercept traffic within a specific network -- such as the PAN traffic between Mr. Johnson's commlink and other devices on his network.

To perform an Intercept Wireless Signal action, make an Electronic Warfare + Sniffer (3) Test. Once the signal is intercepted, you can monitor the traffic and even copy/record/forward it without making any more Intercept Wireless Signal actions. If you want to block out some parts of the traffic or add in your own, you must make an Edit action.

There is no way to detect interception of a wireless signal.

Note that wireless communications are usually encrypted, so you'll need to decrypt the signal before you can intercept or capture the traffic.

Jamming (SR4 p225)

Jamming -- also known as electronic countermeasures -- requires special hardware that is heavily restricted (see p. 320). Jammers come in two varieties: area jammers and spot jammers. Area jammers broadcast over a large area (based on their Signal attribute), effectively blanketing out all wireless nodes in that area. Spot jammers concentrate their jamming in a narrow angle, which makes them very effective against individual targets. Jammers are opposed by electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM), which filter out jamming signals. Jamming a wireless node cuts off its Matrix connection unless it is hardwired to a Matrix gateway.

Initiating jamming is a Complex Action. Any device with a Signal rating less than the jamming device's Signal rating is overwhelmed. Note that ECCM (see p. 227) increases a protected device's Signal rating for jamming comparison purposes.

Note also that jamming can be either selective (targeting specific frequencies) or a barrage attack that seeks to interfere with all frequencies.
hobgoblin
QUOTE (Wasabi)
Is Bluetooth freq hopping? It doesnt use a loadset or freq hop AFAIK.

it does indeed do so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth

look under the "air interface" part of the "technical information" section...

and yes, i had to look it up to be sure...
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (coolgrafix)
Rotbart, there is no such game mechanic as supressing a signal. Only Jamming.

The blocking part is what I meant with 'suppressing'.

Jamming happens on layer 1, those attacks happen on layer 2 or 3... meaning they happen pretty much independent from the media.

But you are right, the mechanic for those attacks is missing.
Wasabi
QUOTE (hobgoblin @ Apr 14 2007, 10:21 PM)
QUOTE (Wasabi @ Apr 14 2007, 11:15 PM)
Is Bluetooth freq hopping? It doesnt use a loadset or freq hop AFAIK.

it does indeed do so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth

look under the "air interface" part of the "technical information" section...

and yes, i had to look it up to be sure...

Well I'll be darned... it *does* freq hop... keen!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012