It doesn't seem to tough to me. Just put an 'O' in the box for Matrix damage and an 'X' in the box for everything else. That's what I do when I have a magician that needs to track unhealable damage from drain.

Heck, with the size of the boxes on the character sheet, you could pretty much take notes on the source of each box of damage.

Why does Unwired talk about hacking cyber implants by DNI? DNI is the Direct Neural Interface - a man-machine interface like a manual switch, not a network interface.

Cyberware can be internally networked as per main book, of course.

If you're talking about page 90, it says that one virus/worm can infect all DNI devices once it affects one, since they're all linked via DNI (such as, your datajack, cyberarms, and an internal air tank) if they infect your datajack, then the virus can spread pretty easy to all those other devices.

If you're talking about something else, be more descriptive, give a page reference/quote.

Indeed. The crunch is on p. 102 of Unwired, refering to p. 31 of Augmentation.

DNI is described in both the main book and Augmentation as a connection to the nervous system, allowing the use of an implant like a muscle (which needs to be trained). In fact, both Augmentation and the main book talk about internal linking of implants additional to DNI - Augmentation specificly concerning automatic triggers.

So there is WiFi (network interface), internal link (network interface) and DNI (or manual/automatic trigger) (man-machine interface).

Hacking over those additional links beween implants makes sense. Those are physical connections that follow the usual rules. Hacking over DNI, on the other hand, doesn't work by the rules actually defined in the main book or Augmentation.
Because, to hack over DNI would require the hacker to hack your brain first - as it's the only bridge between two DNI interfaces.

one can read that bit about linking as being done via the DNI system.

hell, its just another protocol for the hardware so it would not surprise me if it could work that way...

Actually, it neither refers to WiFi nor DNI.


It's much more. It's about using the nervous system as a bus without interfering with it's function. And that's impossible.
In fact, DNI only works by interfering with it. And of course, Augmentation refers to the direct neural interface exclusively as a trigger.

It's not impossible if the energy is low enough.

See, that's the problem - the nervous system is a binary bus with relais. Signals that are lower than the threshold don't make the jump, intensity is frequency-coded.

And of course, it's completly unnecessary to try using it that way, because Augmentation tells us that even manual triggers as well as remote triggers and automatic triggers in addition to the neural trigger (called DNI) are completly free of charge... both in Essence and money.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

I believe what he is saying is this, like in RL anything less than 5 volts is a Low/Null signal, anything 5 volts or greater is a High/Counted signal. Ie if the signal does not equal or exceed the threshold does not count or measured.

WMS

Sure, but the threshold at which a signal can be read is arbitrary based on the technology being used. A skinlink (a technology that is modernly available), for example, does not need the kind of power that, say, Ethernet is looking for.

The issue Rotbart raises is biological signal transmission, not reception. You need a biological "high" signal to trigger a signal along the neural pathway, high being defined by the trigger level of the ion canals in your nerves.

A more sensible interpretation has the "direct neural" part of DNI happen only at the brain, where a technological bus set up by nanites is connected to a large number of natural, newly formed axons. I believe the ability of the adult brain to develop new axons has been proven some years ago.

Just the moment you made the nervous system part of 'the technology used', you'll have to play by it's rules. Which aren't arbitrary at all - either the signal has the level to make the jump over the synapse, or it hasn't.

Thus, if you try transmit lower than that threshold, you won't get anywhere. If you reach that threshold, you just created a sensory signal.

But that's just the technical stuff, concerning SR, DNI is defined by Augmentation as a feedback switch to the brain - not a network interface. So no hacking over DNI - just hacking over the interal links as described in the main book and Augmentation.


But why would you do that, if letting those nanites create an fibre-optical link that is easier, more reliable and actually up to those near-infinite transmission speeds described by the rules - and is in fact so cheap that it costs neither money nor essence?

Because at some point I need to attach the wire to the neural pathways of/to the brain, at least if I want direct control over the implant. Lets call it "easy mental command", or something close to that

As DNI is not a detailed piece of tech, you are free to consider it provided by an essence-free, very low-powered version of the SIM-module. All implants would be technologically wired to that, and thus share a connection. The brain-implant connection would be limited due to teach-in limitations, but the devices could be hacked via a purely technological pathway. Fits to the security concerns raised by Unwired.

No, you don't - all that wire does is allowing implant A talk to implant C, like said in the main book.
Mental control happens directly at the implant via DNI.


Nope, Augmentation tells us that every implant has it's own neural connection (and other triggers, if desired).


The more I think about it, the more I get the impression that the author of said piece of Unwired simply missed those parts of the main book and Augmentation. Dead give-aways are the fact that DNI is once translated as Direct Neural Input instead of Direct Neural Interface, and only datajacks ackt as universal gateway by the rules.

But, hey - by RAW, it's up to two things: No Datajack, no Problem - and Strong Encryption makes Implants unhackable in-conflict anyway.

Can you give me the relevant quote? Straight please, because I can´t seem to find support on the pages mentioned so far.

The rest is on p. 32, Cyberware Triggers (something Unwired doesn't adress, at all.) - the relevant main book quote is above.

What you mean fits CyberSuites that are supposed to share some components - those should be handled as Clustered Nodes by default.

I'm falling asleep, so please forgive me if I'm incoherent.

I'm talking about running an electrical signal along present neural structures, using the nerves as the medium for an electrical signal. Contrary to popular belief, a neurological impulse traveling along a nerve is not electrical in nature, but more like a wave of biochemical actions (ask the_dunner, he probably can explain it better than I can). What I'm talking about runs in parallel to nervous function.

And what the heck is a "binary bus with relais?" Unless I'm mistaken (and I might be), somebody's mixing their metaphors.

I presume I am missing part of what you are taking as working (which probably means I am wrong here).
Given that nerves do not physically touch each other, how can you run an electrical signal "along a nerve" for more than the length of a single neuron? Yes, some neuron's have good reach, but for the whole body, that just doesn't cut it.
Skinlink works because you are running the electrical signal along the skin. And there are plenty of demonstrations that skin is sufficiently conductive. But the nervous system has all these inter-neuron gaps which are bridged by chemical signals. These appear, as I understand it, to provide sufficient insulation that a low level signal along the surface of a neuron simply isn't going to affect the next neuron.

Joel

Emphasis mine.
From this link:
Nerves
From this link:
Action Potential
So basically it is electrochemical.

WMS

If you believe that the signal transmission through a neuron is not influenced by voltage application, then I understand how you could see this as a solution.


Basically, synapses act as a relais/transistor that allow signals to propagate along the path once the threshold is reached - making the bus binary. If your 'parallel' signal is below that threshold, it won't be propagated, though it still will distort normal function.


Nevertheless, the point is that Augmentation defines DNI as an integral man-machine interface, not an interconnecting network interface, so I still can't see where the hacking angle from Unwired came from, other than a misunderstanding.

Would you be so kind as to look up length of the average synapse (or "inter-neuron gap"), and then also check to see what's actually in that "gap" (it's not a vacuum)? It would save me some time. Thanks.

Sorry, I was sleepy. What I meant to say was that while the action of the electrical impulse moving along the nerve is electrochemical (120 m/s, indeed; very slow), the actual routing of those signals is biochemical in nature, what with the whole "let's route the signal generated by our brains by altering the concentration of neurotransmitter between us" thing.

If you're using the nervous system as a networking medium, and you're using voltages low enough to be read by machines but enough to trigger nerves, you're all good.

I'll see your link and raise you a voltage-dependent calcium channel.


First off, you keep using that word ("bus"). I do not think it means what you think it means. To save me time, please look up "electrical bus" on Wikipedia, unless you're not trying to use the term "bus" as a networking term.

Second, and I'm really curious about this, in what language is "relay" spelled "relais?" Is that French? I truly am curious; one of my degrees is Linguistics.


Dunno about that. I just thought I'd mention that it's possible to use one's nerves as a networking medium.

Relais is German.

Interesting, but not exactly relevant to the point - the synapse gap that still will isolate the 'parallel', lower potential if it doesn't meet the threshold. That's what it does.


Actually (and unfortunatly), I do. Given the low-level, intra-device nature, it's appropriate.


German.


In that case, we'll have to agree to disagree. Mostly because one's nerves are already used as a 'networking medium' every day by oneself, with no 'bandwidth' to spare.

Really none of my degrees are in linguistics and I was able to understand/decipher what he meant.

Maybe you were sleepy in that class too.

WMS

One can not change the potential across the membrane of the axon without messing with the basic information transmitted by the nerve. Which of the following do you visit upon your natural signals? (I am guessing it would have to be the later, as a technological ion channel into/out of the synaptic gap could analyse the voltage to trigger correctly.)

- A higher-gated systems action potentials would trigger the states of the lower-gated systems ion channels. (= wrong information)

- A lower-gated system would speed up or slow down the state changes of the higher-gated system (= distorted information).


With SR4s tech, it should be easy to build a dedicated technological bus (even if wrong, I was using that term intentionally before). The tech can handle all networking needs via a central routing chip, the brain just has to build new old-school axons to that while learning to use the new functions of the body. All existing, natural signals are left alone, the functional requirements on the brain are lower, and malware can spread via DNI while brainhacking does not get a foot in the door.

Sure, just Augmentation tells us that the neural interface is integral to the implant, not centralized.
Also the method of technologically linking the implants is never detailed, but manual/automatic/remote triggers are seperate from the neural one as per Augmentation.

Of course, Unwired tells us that
So, by RAW, Datajacks seem to be linked to every computerized implant by default - and if you got no datajack, there's no problem.

Integral does not necessarily mean "inside". It can also mean "holistic". I would not let that word stand between me and a simple, believable solution anyway, just saying.


I am retracting my former statement and suggest to use higher-gated additional ion channels. It would likely be fun to implement it, but one could ride piggy-back on the "high" signal of natures action potentials, as long as the number of natural impulses is sufficient to carry the information. Combined with the right inbound/outbound speed of ion transport, higher-gated channels could keep natures signal timing, while creating two kinds of high signal for a binary technological system (with variable transmission speed).

Now the doc trying to teach my DNI connections to spread malware has a lesson comming... that should only work with a central routing device, but not within the limits of actual direct neural input.

The latter is not likely, though, given the context - Cybersuites, of course, are something else entirely.


Whatever you choose to believe.


Of course, the free optical wire will produce better results in any kind of situation.


Never get a Datajck, then - given the age of Skinlink, they are overrated, anyway.
That's the real advatage of going wire-free - you can turn the relevant interface off and go autistic.

Relais is also correct in French.

Doch wirklich? Huh.

I ... never mind. We're apparently talking about two different signals, here.


Question the first: if it's a bus, what exactly is a "binary bus," and why make the distinction?
Question the second: if the CNS (or ZNS, in German) is a bus, how come my fingers don't get the signal that is sent to my abs?
These are the issues that make it difficult for me to accept your premise.


Danke.


Again, we're talking about different signals, here.

The German language took Relais from old French, or so Wiki claims (certainly sounds that way).


Under SR3, all devices got DNI-enabled by being hooked up to either a datajack or router (Man&Machine, Interconnectivity->mental access, pg. 46).

As DNI can spread malware, it still has to provide networking abilities between the DNI devices (Unwired pg. 90).

The disadvantages of a disabled wireless adapter (Augmentation pg. 31) can only be explained if the bandwith of DNI is sub-par. Neural transmission can handle that, but can´t explain how a limited mental interface is going about spreading malware. Not without making the brain a hackable networking device.

A cheap, low performance router, hooked up to the brain and all DNI devices, answers many questions. It might be possible to use neurons for the transmission of information, but it seems to be an awfully complicated way of going about things, unless the implant is replacing a natural function (only). Why should one try in other cases?

Indeed, but cyber implants had and still have their very own DNI by default.


Which it doesn't, by the actual rules - just Datajacks allow access to DNI implants. And even the fluff refers to datajacks.


Actually, Augmentation presumes that no access is possible, at all.


You mean, like the free links the main book and Augmentation talk about - except for the low performance part?

You are right, the actual rules on pg. 102 only speak of datajacks. And in that case I´m fine with the assumption of a connection, that´s what the things have always been about.

I just find it odd that datajacks seem force you to link all your linkable implants to them - and that the author seems to presume that has anything to do with DNI directly.

Of course, as an abstraction, an implant having DNI requires it to be computerized and thus link- and then hackable, making DNI a somehow sufficient criteria.
Maybe that's where this confusion comes from.

There are three kinds of connectivity in the main book (gear chapter on cyberware): wireless, DNI, optional connection to other implants. Given the general quality of the German translation, it is possible that the implant connection option is supposed to be provided by DNI, and obligatory. Might be another "feature".

Augmentation deals with wireless and DNI functions, but considers the lack of wireless connectivity a disadvantage. No talk of "Hey, you have that datajack. Cool!"

Unwired does not seem to have any restrictions on the connection via the datajack/DNI. It seems that one device with wired port could remove all need for wireless links. Cyberware security option: Have a datajack, disable all wireless adapters, use your comlink to provide wireless capability to the network. Instant unavoidable chokepoint. Internal comlinks would be another form of critical access point, so there are more than the datajack.


Can we get an official answer on the capabilities and limitations of straight implant connections?

And the quote that all this came from was unwired stating that viruses can spread from one implant to another. If they're all tied to your datajack for outside connection, wireless off, thats fine, but if someone hooks up to your cyberleg while you're sleeping, and uploads a virus, your datajack will get it too, and it will then go to all your other ware.

I do not own german books of SR4, nor do I use them as reference.
The relevant quote above is from the latest PDF:

So there is no error here - links are additional and optional, like additional triggers in Augmentation.

If you don't have DNI, enjoy spending simple actions to use that piece of ware every single time.

Thanks for the quote Rotbart! (Again)

@Tarantula: I´m aware that physical access to a device on the PAN can still be the attackers win. That´s part of the "where do I sleep tonight?" kind of risks however, not a question of network security. One can not casually disassemble the external implants of someone else. And why shouldn´t one have DNI? Apart from the blurred lines in Unwired, it does not pose a risk?

Right. Now, with Unwired, if someone hacks any one of your implants with DNI, it can propagate the virus to any other DNI implants. Thats the only reason its bad.

Nope. Per Rules, that applies only to Datajacks.

Uh, no, per p.90 of unwired, all DNI devices are linked, presumably by the DNI interface. (I see it as one interface, the DNI, that future implants are just connected to, since having 5 different DNI's to your brain for 5 different implants would probably get the implants confused. Also, how are they supposed to figure out what you're thinking of doing without somehow reading the whole brain?

Which aren't rules. The rules are on p. 102. Concerning the 'one central DNI' - both the main book and augmentation speak of individual DNI.

Please read the discussion above, it's all there.

I haven't seen any specifics to either individual DNI or a central DNI. In my games, I'd rule it as having a central DNI that all DNI implants are hooked up to. Why? Go put 5 trode nets on your head, and see if you can send different signals to the different ones (trodes are DNI too).

I think this is alluded to where it says that if you have a datajack then your cyberware is routed through that for DNI. Seems to suggest you only have 1 DNI active, and that all things using DNI utilize that one.

The quotes telling so from p. 330 main book and p. 31 & 32 Augmentation are above.

330 of the main book says they can also be linked to other cyberware. I don't know what quote you're referring to in aug, can you actually quote it please?