I would have to say that for wireless capability to exist, the wireless functionality would need to be enabled. No amount of hacking into my computer / electronic device via wireless will work if the wireless is turned off. Same thing goes for the IR port. If it's turned off / disabled, you can't turn it on by sending messages to the IR port. The system it's attached to isn't responding to it.

A device isn't wireless capable if the wireless is disabled.

Does that mean there aren't bugs out there that can be used to enable said capability (if the hardware / software for it is present) and then use it for nefarious purposes? Nope. I can see someone wanting to do just that.

IMO, based on the activators as listed here, they don't go and turn on something that is explicitly turned off. They hijack it.

I'm reading the activators as changing the allowed access list rather than the state (on/off) of the device. Think privilege elevation. You know, a lot like Exploit (hacker program).

Would I as a nefarious and evil person want to have something that can turn on your cyber's wireless for me to hijack? You betcha. Would I make such a device? Damn skippy I would. But that's because I'm evil that way.

I suspect that is what they were trying for but missed via ambiguity.

Not much demand, no. But according to RAW, such swtiches are tivial to install and cost nothing to add. So, it's not out of the question for a runner to have several such switches installed.

Wouldn't the sunglasses' own interface itself count as a 'toggle' in that case?

Yeah but let's expand this example to actually include Activators.

In addition to the virus, someone also takes a load of powerful nanites and inject them into your fucking computer and then the microscopic machines power up your computer and open it up to unrestricted wireless internet connectivity. Then the virus is downloaded onto your hard drive.

Can your computer get infected then?

-Frank

I am thinking of that ... it's on on/off switch. In the 'off' position, what it controls doesn't work. When in the 'on' position, it should. Hence my question as to why you wouldn't classify this as a 'toggle'.

If those nanites can carry the cable to the computer and plug it in and then turn it on... wait, go to the power switch, turn on the power and then turn the computer on. Yes. Are you saying that's what the nanites do?

They change the physical hardware of your computer so that it is doing whatever it is that the particular type of Intruder Nanite says that it does. A very reasonable "hardware based" method to subscribe a device to nodes would include turning on the wireless device - so yes. That is pretty much what they do.

-Frank

Actually Intruder Nanites bypass standard software and software defenses and instead hit the processor directly, making it a "hardware attack." It doesn't matter how many times it tells the processer "subscribe to these lists," the actual implant or device can't do so if the wireless connectivity is turned off. Those are completely separate and distinct functions. The former relies on the latter. The former doesn't initiate the latter, especially. And the former certainly doesn't construct its own hardware (be it completing a circuit, constructing a fuse, or plugging a modem back into the device) on the fly to facilitate the latter.

So no, it doesn't create a "'hardware based' method to subscribe a device to nodes." It just skips the software defenses and tells the processor directly. Completely different things.

Intruder nanites attack the BIOS or CPU rather than the Operating System, again as a more contemporary example. And no matter how many times you tell the BIOS or the CPU to connect to the internet, it can't do it if you switch your modem off.

What, wait - if it can interact with the process directly, why can it not engage any switch?

Lots of switches are electrically controlled.

It's smart enough to haxor processors directly so there is a lot of brains in there.

Edit: It's been a while, but isn't the power on switch on the front of most PCs actually wired to transistors on the motherboard that then tell the powersupply to go from stand by to power on.

In that case isn't it actually attacking the 'processor' to turn the device on?

With my laptop for example, the wireless switch is hardware. But you could certainly take the machine *turn it on* (electric toggle switch), then fire up the modem and dial out if it was connected to anything. However wireless has a physical switch, so you couldn't do that.

If you contrast it to my co-workers dell, he has an electrical switch for wireless that you could probably activiate if you could control arbitart transistors (what you do if you interact with the processor), and go for off laptop to connected to the internet.

Only if the nanites are capable of brewing coffee and raising my stats to 500 as well.

If my computer doesn't have wireless, only internet, then how can it get infected by a wireless virus? What happens if my wireless card is broken, and my modem is disconnected? Since I don't have any possible way to connect to the internet, due to the cable lying on the floor in another room, then the answer is no. You cannot infect a computer with an internet virus when it's not connected to the internet, nanites or no nanites.

Seriously, all Activators do by RAW is turn on a wireless-enabled device. They don't bridge gaps, they don't drag cables halfway across the house. If you have a wireless-disabled device, by flipping an uncommon (but dirt cheap to add) toggle switch, then the activators can't do a damn thing.

Try this on for size: Let's say that Decker X has a burnt-out internal commlink after a nasty cybercombat. He then gets hit with Activators. Are you suggesting that the nanites actually fix the broken cyber?
Edit:

Exactly. So if you add a physical toggle to turn the wireless off, then the nantites can't do anything. You might be able to write a program to power up my computer when I shut it down the soft way, but you can't do a thing if I unplug it from the wall.

While there is clearly a point of absurdity (the power supply is in another country) and a point of rationality (The device is turned off, but otherwise connected to stuff), you could probably argue for months about where in the middle is the grey line.

I'd be perfectly happy with activators activating an electrically operated switch. A hard physical disconnect would probably be another issue.

Edit: In other news, why carn't activators turn on a toggle switch? they clearly have the capacity to reroute power in a device (basic principle of operating electronics), why don;t they just re-route power somewhere else?

Edit2: I agree with you, in the totally disconnected from power state, activators cannot do anything. neither can the user. However, things like cyberlimbs are never actually disconnected from your body which gives you power. Lets discuss them.

Might I just say that the description of Activators and Deactivators is loose enough that Tarantula's interpretation is reasonable? You are in no position to be so emphatic in saying that he's wrong. I think most of us would agree that the disabling of wireless functionality is normally handled by software rather than making a physical break in a circuit somewhere. And with the description of nanites right next to the Activator description that can actually edit AR visuals in real time (now that's insane), re-activating wireless seems trivial. I agree with Cain in that introducing a physical switch would scupper the nanites, but I disagree that this would be something you came across in the course of a game. A character who did that would be legitimately regarded as crazy: "Let me get this right - you paid the doc 400 to drill a hole in your arm and stick a light switch in it so that you turn your wireless off by pressing it instead of just thinking a thought at it?"

I am when he does little more in these threads but tell people that they're wrong "by the RAW" only to have him play the part of the shining hypocrite and ignoring "RAW" as he sees fit, then act like he's justified in doing so. Especially when what he's saying is nothing like what is actually written.

Put it this way. Turning off your wireless connectivity is something a smart character does. Just like putting on armor, getting an innoculation, or acquiring any other passive defenses. Right? Right.

Now say someone shoots you with a bullet. That armor you're wearing interfers with the bullet doing it's job. So what's that mean? Of course! The bullet deactivates the armor and hits you unimpeded because that's what it was designed to do -- hit you and kill you.

Now say you encounter Gamma-Anthrax after having received an innoculation in preparation for that exposure. Gamma-Anthrax can't do it's job because you had the foresight to innoculate yourself... so, naturally, that means Gamma-Anthrax deactivates the innoculation and kills you dead because that's what it does -- kill you.

Getting the point yet?

Activators make no mention of disabling that admittedly SIMPLE defense against them. But that's the point. It's a defense against just that sort of attack, one that's ASSUMED most runners aren't doing (else it would be the default setting rather than there being a rule allowing you to do so). Activators stick it hard to those who weren't smart and who didn't care to turn off their wireless connectivity for whatever reason. Just like bullets hurt people without armor alot more than they hurt those with it. Just like toxins and pathogens will fuck you over if you don't have an innoculation. It's all the same basic principle: You take the precaution, you get the benefit. You don't, you suffer the consequences.

Yes, loud and clear - you wish to be rude not only to Tarantula, but also anyone who attempts to inject some neutrality into the debate.

The text says "wireless capable devices." That's more than enough room to rule that they can turn on wireless connections, especially when we have an established level of tech for nanites that is way beyond that (editing AR visuals in real time). And when Tarantula says that there are no physical cut offs for wireless connectivity under RAW, he's correct to the extent of my knowledge (unless you start daubing yourself in wi-fi blocking paint). It would be a harsh GM that didn't let a player get something like that installed, but it's not in the book.

This may be a shock to you, but not everyone agrees with you. A GM could justifiably rule either way according to RAW. And that is all I said and it was in response to your telling Tarantula: "You're wrong. Deal with it!"

Regards,

-Khadim.

See. RAW when it supports him, fuck it all when it doesn't. Hence the attitude.

No, it's not a shock at all. The only shock I ever get on these forums are the people who think they're the only ones with an opinion and everyone else is dictating universal laws to them instead of also sharing their opinion. But I guess it's only okay to develop and defend an opinion if it's yours, not anyone else's, eh?

And hey, no matter how ridiculous the assertion is, we can totally ignore it as we see fit because "RAW" doesn't say it can't do something, so it can! That's the asinine logic being used here afterall.

Actually, that's not the argument at all. The argument is whether a device which has its wireless capabilities turned off is "wireless capable".

I, and for that matter Tarantula, say that unless the antennae are physically removed the answer is "yes". And if it is a "wireless capable device", an activator can, well, activate its wireless capabilities to allow unrestricted access from other wireless devices.

You say that a device whose antennae has been powered down is not wireless capable. That's a defensible position, but it is unfair to characterize people who disagree with you as making giant logical leaps.

-Frank

Hmm. I can turn off my computer by telling Windows to shut it down (a software command). Yet can't turn it back on without manually pushing the button on the case.

But that can't be. And when it's turned off (or even just the modem is turned off), my internet-capable computer is no longer internet capable, huh? And just because I have it turned off, that instantly destroys any viruses I may have that infected my internet-capable device. (Which, by the way, is all the text for Activators says; is that it infects wireless-capable devices, not that it can do jack shit if wireless connectivity is turned off. But never mind that.)

Didn't see your post until I posted. As I said in my last post, just because I turn my modem or even my PC off, that doesn't stop it from being an internet-capable device. It's still capable of logging on to the internet; it just isn't at the moment, nor can any software or even hardware virii installed on my currently internet-capable device affect the internet due to that simple precaution.

No. I say it's wireless-capable, it's just not wireless-"active" to semi-coin a phrase I guess. Again: Phenomenonally huge difference between the two. I can pull all the plugs and wires on my computer and put it in my closet, and it's still internet-capable. If I rip out the network card and tash my modem, it's no longer internet-capable.

But you see, Activators don't require a wireless active target. They require a Wireless capable target. So if you admit that a device whose wireless has merely been turned off is still wireless capable, then there's no room for argument.

It's a hardware attack. Little nanites come into your device and transform a wireless capable device into a device which is active on the internets and open to any kind of intrusion.

For contrast, the Deactivator nanites shut your wireless connections off. There's a little piece of parity there. Deactivators turn your wireless off, Activators turn your wireless on. There is no requirement for your wireless to already be on for an Activator to function, nor is there a requirement for your wireless to be off for a Deactivator to function.

Indeed, the entire name of the "Acivator" should probably indicate to you that it probably circumvents a need for the target to be active. That's why it's an Activator.

-Frank

Actually, it says it infects a wireless-capable device and that's only mentioned in that exact regard -- what it infects. And there's no reason why they wouldn't be able to infect a wireless-capable device that was shut off because it doesn't attack through software or wireless means; it attacks the processor -- and only the processor -- directly.

No, that's not what Intruder Nanites do. Intruder Nanites hijack a device by ignoring all the software protection like Firewall or IC. It's right there in plain text in the first paragraph of Intruder Nanites. Hell, the second paragraph even says a simple reboot destroys them. They're not these hardcore super hackers and mini-nanoforges capable of ultratech manipulations.

Exactly! They specifically state that they turn off wireless connections. That is not the opposite of removing software permissions, which is what Activators are described as doing. And it's a simple function to perform; my version of Windows XP can do it just like <snap> that, as can most any application if it wanted to. But I don't have a single program that'll turn my computer on if it's turned off; but I have have virii that attempts to take out my security so that malicious intruders can hack into it while it was turned on and connected to the Internet. Nifty coincidence, neh?

They're two completely different types of nanites, both performing completely different functions with only a naming scheme and a single function being related to one another.

Does that mean a Colt Manhunter is actually a bounty-seeking baby horse? Are Surtr nanites actually fire giants from Mulsphelheim? Names are marketing gimmicks, nothing more nothing less.

Such as for example (and I quote):

Yep, I'll agree with you on the issue of people should remember their giving their opinion. You might also want to avoid directing your venom at people (me) who were trying to return a bit of neutrality to the thread.

Now since you're arguing so vehemently that the paragraph you quoted:

means that you have to physically flick a switch, press a button, etc. to re-enable wireless, then you are presumably arguing that anyone with a DNI interface to their cyberware (which is pretty much everyone and everytype of cyber device bar things like dermal plating), cannot turn wireless on via this link? Because if they can, then wireless is clearly disabled through a "soft" setting, and if they can't, then you have to (a) provide a very good reason why not, and (b) go back through all those games where people did exactly that and ret-con it.

Where have I utterly ignored RAW when forming my arguements and opinions, please, a quote & link to the thread.

Aug, 116, "Activators infect wireless-capable devices and perform one of two simple, yet annoying tasks: They either subscribe the infected device to nodes without the user’s permission, or open the device to universal unrestricted access. Such changes in access status are not necessarily apparent if the device isn’t being directly monitored."

Going through the paragraph, activators infect ANY wireless-capable powered on or not, wireless active or not. Then, it can perform one of its two functions, either subscribing the device to nodes, or opening it universally.

System reboots destroy nanites, so its quite arguable that a powered off device instantly destroys any nanites infecting itself.

This leaves powered on devices, with wireless on and with wireless off to be possibly infected. Since theres no debate about devices with their wireless turned on, we'll just assume it works as intended on them. With devices powered on, with their wireless off, there is no text governing what happens. The Activator text says they do their effects with no mention of wireless status, merely capability. This is why I believe they are able to enable the wireless connection, and subscribe or open it to access.

You are equally valid in choosing that by not specifying how it affects a wireless off device, it doesn't. However, this isn't the only intepretation, and continuing to insist that it is just shows how hypocritical you are.

Aug, 116, "Deactivators: Similar to activators, deactivators either unsubscribe the user’s node access or close all of the device’s wireless connections."
Really? Completely different? Even though the text for deactivators says they are similar to activators? I wasn't aware that things that were similar are completely different.

Actually, no. According to Augmentation, manual switches are a free extra for cyber devices. You can easily hook that physical toggle to the wireless card, disabling wireless.

Once again: these switches are free, and actually override the mental impulse. For example, let's say Logan the Sammie gets cyberspurs installed. Rather than having them go "SNIKT" every time he thinks about his fingernails funny, he gets a manual switch installed, until he can get used to his new toys. This is pretty much the reason used in Augmentation for adding manual triggers.

Unless you buy rating six, in which case it's a guaranteed deal.

As to your other points:

1) It scrubs it because anyone with half a brain will set the activators to subscribe the ware to their network. At which point the ware isn't a node, it's just slaved to a (probably quite hardened) node.
2) It's crippling because once your 'ware is owned by another node, they have a free back door to whatever system it was originally on, since it's probably still subscribed to that. Or, in the case of any system that isn't, they can crash the ware or edit to to do what they want. Eyes? Ears? Limbs? Headware comm? About the only non-critical ware are the little bits: the encephalon, the spur, the math SPU. Tallying my own street sam's gear, I count 9 pieces of ware I consider 'critical' or would otherwise totally hose me, and 3 that wouldn't (spur, math spu). The fact remains that the larger the system is (limbs, nervewires, headware) the more likely it'll be to be the 'first encountered'. And generally that gear is highly critical.
3) Activators can be spread via contact or inhalation. That means that if you pump a couple of doses into a room, people won't notice, and they'll get hit multiple times.

My point isn't that they aren't awesome - they are. My point is that if they can turn your shit on when you have wireless set to 'off', they should cost more. Especially since they're only 8R availability, and thus players could spread 'em all over for cheap. All I'm saying is that rating 6 vs something that's almost always rating 1 that can't be improved (since they bypass firewall) is kinda cheap to march around willy nilly if something is 'off' to begin with.

So for 3000 I can virtually guaranty that I can activate some guy's wireless connection on his arm if I can hit it with a jelly.

Or for 1000 I can unload a canister of Seven-7 and just fucking murder everyone in a city block.

Or hell, for 50 I can get a pack of Narcoject that'll just plain knock some fool unconcious if I hit him with the jelly. Then I can walk over and hack his cyberlimbs to my heart's content.

I think the sky may in fact be falling.

-Frank

Augmentation p. 31
"Nonetheless, for the paranoid, it is relatively easy to have a
street doc disable or remove wireless links. Note, however, that
this makes care and maintenance more difficult. Besides requiring
invasive surgical procedures for inspection and maintenance, the
gamemaster may apply a –1 to –3 dice pool modifier to any relevant
tests the cyberdoc performs. Note that some implants may
not need a complete wireless link—built-in RFID sensor tags can
monitor the implant and report any problems. The gamemaster
determines what implants/devices incorporate wireless links."