Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Proposition – Making yourself untraceable in the Matrix
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
CodeBreaker
Good Afternoon, fellow Dump-Shockers! For the last hour or so I have been fiddling with a method of making myself practically untraceable in the world of the Matrix. Now, it has its flaws (Which I cover near the end), and the method post is quite big because I tend to waffle on about things. So I tried to sum it up in bullet points (That probably will not have their format copied over to the boards and will appear ugly as hell). So, onwards!

Now, the point of this thread. The following method is one I intend to use soon enough in my monthly Matrix run that my Game master is kind enough to let me run. Basically it lets me and him sit down and play about with all the nice shiny Matrix rules that are really a bit bothersome to fit into normal running. Now, my Game master is quite kind in that if I can logically explain why I think something might work (within the rules) then he is willing to give me some leeway. However he also knows the Matrix rules inside and out, and I want to make sure the plan I have provided above actually has a chance of working and that I haven't made some blundering error that will result in Corp-Sec forces rushing my location and breaking my shiny, shiny toys. He is also a cunning little bastard, so any suggestions about how you would go about breaking it will also be helpful. Why do I want to be able to hack at home? Because of my Resonance Well, Feng Shui and that other one that gives a bonus ... screw it I forget.

And to all those who might say “Why don't you just hack from your local Burger Bar and run like hell when you get traced?�. Fuck you! I like playing with complicated ways of doing things, its more fun grinbig.gif

So, go rule savvy Dump-Shockers, rip the following (That is kindly put into Spoiler tags because it is quite large) to shreds! I am fairly sure it is rule legal (In that I wrote it with Unwired and SR4A sitting next to me the entire time) but I might of missed something small.

[ Spoiler ]


Now, because of the rambling way I sometimes write parts of that might look jumbled up or in the wrong order or something. I apologise (I think I have that in my sig here wobble.gif ), its just the way I seem to of grown up to write. I have to get one of my friends to proof read any short stories I write because they sometimes dont make sense to other people who read them. Now if you will excuse me I have to hit Post New Topic, read a random page of Unwired and figure out this entire method doesnt work because of some single little tab talker.gif
deek
I posted, then re-read that you wanted to hack from home, so I deleted everything.

I'm gonna have to look at a proxy server and what RAW allows you to do with that. I know there are anonymizers and proxy servers in unwired, I just haven't read up a ton on them.

In theory, if all traces will stop at a proxy, then you would be safe during and after your hacks.

Although, just as your subscription can be traced back from your drone, subscribing to a proxy could theoretically be traced back to you.

One thing you could do is have an agent constantly redirect the trace. Based on RAW, a trace action extended test would lose one die each test, so if you could outlast a trace, you could be safe.
Ravor
Something to consider is that whether or not your Agent can do what you want it to do from a commlink and not have to be loaded onto your "proxie node" is a subject of debate.
crizh
While this ought to work, RAW it does not.

The mechanical effect of using a Proxy is a +2 to the Threshold of any Trace attempts on you and a -1 Response penalty.

That's it.
CodeBreaker
Damn, reading Trace and all the rule sections that could even possibly apply to Proxy Servers and you are right... thats just retarded. How the hell is the Trace program supposed to work? It just automagically accesses the Logs of every Node you are routing through and looks at the connecting Node? Damnit... time to ask my GM for some Handwaivium action on how the Trace program works.

EDIT: Bah, the only thing that could possibly work like this is if every Proxy Server is considered an Anonymization service.

Anonymization services work as mediators between the two participants of a commcall or any other data request. The data package is received by the anonymizing node and then forwarded to the receiver using the anonymizer�€™s access ID as sending ID (see Proxy Servers, p. 104). A trace will not reveal the access ID of the original sender, but rather the access ID of the mediator. To retrieve the real access ID, one must hack the proxy server node. If multiple proxy servers are used, each must be hacked.

�€œproxy server�€� is a program routine that acts as a go-between, transferring data from a user (the �€œclient�€�) to another user or node. The advantage to proxies is that they act as an intermediary, so the data seems to be coming from the proxy rather than the client. Hackers and shadowrunners find proxies very useful both as anonymous remailers (obfuscating the original message source) and to foil tracking attempts. Almost any node can be configured to act as a proxy server, though this typically requires admin access and a Computer + Edit (10, 1 Initiative Pass) Test to set-up (use Hacking in place of Computer if you do not have admin privileges). Once set up, messages that are sent from a client through the proxy server node will seem to have originated from the proxy node. In order to determine the source of a message, a hacker would need to trace the message back to the proxy server node and then hack that node�€™s access log (or request it from the admin/owner of the node, if they are cooperating). Anonymizing proxy servers are often set to not keep or to delete message transfer logs.

Now, if you read that a certain way it seems to kind of hint that all Proxy Servers follow the rules of the Anonymizing Service bit. Especially as that specifically gives a referance to that Proxy Server passage. Curse you Unwired, being written by multiple people and not quite melding together completely!

EDIT2: And on Agents being able to act for themselves, I respond with:

For an agent to operate independently of its controlling persona, it must be loaded into a node the persona has access to. The agent logs into an account like any Matrix user (either using passcodes or exploits) and has whatever privileges that account applies. The agent’s software is actually running on this node (not on the persona’s node any more), and so counts towards the node’s processor limit (p. 48). Likewise, any other programs the agent is carrying in its payload must also be running, and so also count towards the processor limit. Like any Matrix user, the agent can access multiple nodes at once. Other nodes must be accessed with passcodes or hacked, per normal rules. The agent remains loaded on only one node, however—though it interacts with other nodes, it does not need to be copied and loaded on them. (In fact, legal unmodified agents are incapable of copying themselves in this manner.

Now, the way I read this is that, like any Matrix user, an Agent acting on its own has two states of presence on the Matrix. It has a Persona (For all purposes) and then it has Icons. When an Agent loads itself into a Node it basically loading its Persona onto that Node. As a Persona acting on a Node any programs that it has loaded into it count towards that Nodes limits. However, like any Matrix user, the Agent can then send its Icons into other Nodes and have them interact with those Nodes. Now, unlike Personas (From what I remember) the Agent can unload its "Virtual Persona" from the Node it is currently on and load itself onto a new Node, at which point it begins using that Nodes attributes for certain things.
The Jake
In Shadowrun proxies don't make you untraceable, only harder. A proxy server is a speedbump. No more.

In theory your idea ain't bad. If the trace stops at a high security node, hacking that could take some time. Also if you use multiple proxies (proxy chaining) and satellite link you can certainly make it computationally infeasible to track you. Of course your Response will take a hit, and the node you're hacking may just forgo the Trace and fire up the Black IC. But that is the risk...

- J.
deek
Something just came up at my game tonight that puts a Trace User into perspective, assuming I am understanding this correctly in SR4.

Take an Agent 4 with a Track 3 program. Nothing major, but something you're bound to run into. Let's say its trying to Trace User on a hacker with Stealth 5. That give the Agent 2 dice (7 dice pool - 5 stealth). Based on SR4, the Agent rolls 2 dice the first Complex Action, then 1 die the second, and then the Trace User is done. Seeing the threshold on this extended test is 10, its impossible, without using Edge, to track this hacker. The Agent gets a total of 3 dice to get 10 hits...

So, from this perspective, a hacker should feel pretty safe when hacking and not being traced.

Now a top notch spider with say 7 skill computer skill, +2 specialized in tracking and Track 6, gets 9 dice to start (15 - 6 Stealth)...but with an extended test losing 1 die each roll, the hacker should still be able to redirect that trace enough time to exhaust the spiders die pool before the trace completes...
Ravor
Ok Codebreaker assuming that your vision of Agents is correct then why don't the corps simply house a massive server farm loaded with SOTA Agents and flood thier other weaker nodes as SOP?

*EDIT* And why don't Deckers do the same?
Boscrossos
Ok, you asked for ways to compromise this setup, here's a few:

- From your summary, I take it that hacking a bank without being found out is within your power. In my games, this would already be a pretty complex task. After all, it's where they keep the money...
-If it works, it only actually stops 1 trace attempt. While the bank may be loathe to cooperate with the Corp that traced you back to them (if they are sure they can avoid a lawsuit), they will do a full security sweep and will not look indly upon finding your agent in their system. Also, the bank, or the Corp you robbed, may well be waiting for you the next time you log on. It may be a good 1-shot measure, but it's quite time-consuming for that. If you can regularly hack admin accounts on secure nodes, why are you bothering with this setup?
- I can imagine that secure servers have better ways of keeping logs than merely digital storage in one place. You would have to hjave a huge setup to bypass all the measures they set up specifically to avoid what you are trying to do.
- Also, secure servers are seldom protected only by programs. A spider looking at those logs and seeing lines continually disappear would get real suspicious real fast. And you know banks and corps care enough to buy the very best (and occasionally the psychotropic)...
- Hacking from home is all well and good, but what about systems that are off the grid? Retransmitter drones can help, but it's an extra bother for your team, and an extra factor in your plan that corpsec can find out about at the wrong moment (if they, for example, regularly monitor wireless activity in their compound).

Of course, all this depends on the setups of the nodes in question. I guess it all boils down to: it works as long as your GM wants it to work, which is true for most things in Shadowrun.
Ryu
  1. Route all Traffic through a hacked high security Node (A bank, for example) that acts as a Proxy Server.
    - This hacking job is dangerous in itself.
  2. Load an Agent/Sprite with as high a Stealth rating as possible onto the Node you are routing through.
    - Said agent/sprite needs stealth, browse, edit, minimum. Defuse and Decrypt might come in handy.
  3. Write a Script for that Agent/Sprite that deletes all information on the Proxy Servers Access Log that relates to your Access ID in real time. Also have the Script modify the Access Log in such a way that the Agent appears as a normal user (Maybe rig up a small transaction into an account to make it look more legit) that simply logged onto the Node, performed some normal transactions and then logged off.
    - A normal user that constantly deletes or modifies data in the access log. The tampering will be detected by any competent spider.
  4. Connect to your target Node through the Proxy Server and conduct your Hack.
  5. When/If you are detected and the enemy ICE runs a Trace on you they are stuck at the Proxy Server. When/If the owner of the Proxy Server allows access to the access logs all they show is normal user activity.
    - When/if your agent or your proxied subscription are detected by the proxy owner, they´ll send special greetings.
  6. You escape free as a birdy


=> Use a proxy you own/can legitimately use. Anonymisation services will at least pretend to fight for your anonymity, instead of attacking you simultaneously in the proxy node and your commlink node. Registering for the service with a fake personality is certainly not a bad idea.



Anonymisation services are provided via proxies.
  • Commcalls/data requests can be traced to the proxie, but can´t be traced through the proxy. (Anonymized commcode)
  • A trace of a subscription routed through a proxy can bypass it. (Anonymizing proxy service)
crizh
QUOTE (Ravor @ Jul 14 2009, 05:36 AM) *
Ok Codebreaker assuming that your vision of Agents is correct then why don't the corps simply house a massive server farm loaded with SOTA Agents and flood thier other weaker nodes as SOP?

*EDIT* And why don't Deckers do the same?


This is the third thread that you have repeated that assertion in without bothering to engage with the counter-argument.

It's beginning to get tiresome.

To answer the question in the quoted post, cost.

To continue to refute the quoted pre-supposition.

QUOTE
Unwired p110

QUOTE
Like any Matrix user, the agent can access multiple nodes at once. Other nodes must be accessed with passcodes or hacked, per normal rules. The agent remains loaded on only one node, however though it interacts with other nodes, it does not need to be copied and loaded on them.


Is that clear enough for you all?

Until I see errata explicitly contradicting this I ain't interested in any further argument on the subject.

That is the RAW.

The text in SR4A is cludgey and does not explicitly contradict the above. If you infer it's effects to their logical idiocy you find that the above quote cannot be true.

It's not a difficult leap of the imagination to infer therefore that the text the OP quoted is just poorly written by someone with an incomplete grasp of it's ramifications and that it will be errata'd in due course.

Certainly less of a leap of imagination than it takes to assume that it overrides the explicit rules in Unwired.

Perhaps Aaron or Tiger Eyes might like to jump in here?
Heath Robinson
Codebreaker,

Is there anything stopping you using one of the Agents that belong to the Corp you've hacked? Or loading your own Agent into the Node.

QUOTE (deek @ Jul 14 2009, 03:48 AM) *
Take an Agent 4 with a Track 3 program. Nothing major, but something you're bound to run into. Let's say its trying to Trace User on a hacker with Stealth 5. That give the Agent 2 dice (7 dice pool - 5 stealth). Based on SR4, the Agent rolls 2 dice the first Complex Action, then 1 die the second, and then the Trace User is done. Seeing the threshold on this extended test is 10, its impossible, without using Edge, to track this hacker. The Agent gets a total of 3 dice to get 10 hits...

So, from this perspective, a hacker should feel pretty safe when hacking and not being traced.

Now a top notch spider with say 7 skill computer skill, +2 specialized in tracking and Track 6, gets 9 dice to start (15 - 6 Stealth)...but with an extended test losing 1 die each roll, the hacker should still be able to redirect that trace enough time to exhaust the spiders die pool before the trace completes...

That rule's an option for the GM, not mandatory. Hell, it's not even a rule - it's a GM fiat suggestion.

QUOTE (Page 64 @ Anniversary Reprint)
The gamemaster can also limit the number of rolls under the assumption that if the character can’t finish it with a certain amount of effort, she simply doesn’t have the skills to complete it. The suggested way to do this is to apply a cumulative –1 dice modifier
to each test after the first (so a character with a Skill 3 + Attribute 3 would roll 6 dice in their first test, 5 in their second, 4 on their third, etc). Note that a character can also fail an Extended Test by glitching (see below).

My emphasis.

When I say "I can kill you with a thought" that doesn't mean that I must, or even am going to, do so. In fact, the standard implication of saying "I can" instead of "I will" is that you are capable but are not about to make use of that capability.
Ravor
crizh because so far the "counterarguement" isn't worth responding to, especially when you have yet to answer my simple question which I shall repeat once again.

IF Agents worked the way that you claim they do then why doesn't everyone load up as many Agents as they can and set them loose on the Matrix like raging locusts? In the "good 'ol days" this was called the Agent Smith Army and was found to cause far more problems than it solved.
CodeBreaker
QUOTE (Ravor @ Jul 15 2009, 01:14 AM) *
crizh because so far the "counterarguement" isn't worth responding to, especially when you have yet to answer my simple question which I shall repeat once again.

IF Agents worked the way that you claim they do then why doesn't everyone load up as many Agents as they can and set them loose on the Matrix like raging locusts? In the "good 'ol days" this was called the Agent Smith Army and was found to cause far more problems than it solved.


1) Agents are expensive. Especially good ones.
2) A Copied Agent keeps the Access ID of the original. This means that only one of that Agent can connect to any one node at a time. Nodes will not accept multiple connections from the same ID
3) Changing that ID takes atleast 2 weeks if I remember right.

(EDIT: The first paragraph in my original responce to you. Yeah, that was a quote. Sorry smile.gif )

And to split the argument about my method not being doable because I use Agents: I use a Sprite. Sprites dont have these problems, Sprites can do everything grinbig.gif
Ravor
The corps literally have more money than God, and the manpower necessary to make the code changes to have their army of Agents, so needing to buy or code seperate Agents is hardly a rebutal.

CodeBreaker
QUOTE (Ravor @ Jul 15 2009, 01:28 AM) *
The corps literally have more money than God, and the manpower necessary to make the code changes to have their army of Agents, so needing to buy or code seperate Agents is hardly a rebutal.


Ok, before I write a big long post, I am curious. What situations are we talking about:

1) MegaCorps deploying huge armies of Agents to do what? Hunt down every Hacker that pokes his face up and Trace him?
2) Hackers themselves deploying massive armies of Agents to bring down the MegaCorps nodes.

What exactly are we talking about here?
CodeBreaker
Screw it! Wrote the post anyways

OK, what we are basically talking about is a BotNet. After all, using a BotNet is really the only way you can control such a vast array of Agents. Thankfully BotNets are talked about in Unwired. Lets have a looksit shall we?

[ Spoiler ]


Now, that one talks about Corps using botnets and why exactly they dont use them aggressively. Because the Corporate Court says so.

[ Spoiler ]


This one hints that GOD also don't like it when people begin using hordes and hordes of Agents in a Bad Wayâ„¢. I don't know about you, but I would not like to piss off GOD. Onto the next one!

[ Spoiler ]


This one is about how Agents are stupid as hell and need supervision. Damn Dog Brains!

[ Spoiler ]


This 'uns a biggie! Right, so basically in a pinch Security Hackers have the tools to screw over any Mass Agent attack quite easily. Just block em all! And honestly, if you are a Security Hacker in a secure node and suddenly 20 different Icons begin accessing your node, when normally you only get 3 or 4 max you are going to lock everything down and call your supervisor. In fact I imagine most Nodes have this written into them.

Right, thats enough posting of quotes. If you have a PDF of Unwired do a search on Botnet and read what you get. Everything in that points towards Agents being able to be run autonomously, with ease, from separate Nodes. Now it is true, Agent Smiths can provoke some annoying problems, but there are also plenty of ways to get around them.
crizh
QUOTE (Ravor @ Jul 15 2009, 01:28 AM) *
The corps literally have more money than God


This is patently nonsense. Corporations are profit making organisations that first and foremost generate dividends for their shareholders by producing products and services with the minimum expenditure of resources that they then sell at the highest price the market can support.

All Security costs money, good Security costs disproportionately more than average Security.

A high end, legal, IC construct will set you back in excess of 75000 nuyen.gif . Corporations cannot get away with using cracked code. Corp Security sends a dozen SOTA IC's after you they have sent nearly a Million nuyen.gif worth of code after your sorry ass, not counting the cost of the hardware required to support it.

The Agent Smith scenario has been safely laid to rest by Unwired and it's errata. The unique AccessID's that Agents possess and the enormous interval for coding around them ensures that anyone that wants to run more than half a dozen agents is going to be spending a fortune doing so.

What you are failing to realize is that the position you are supporting has existed for about 72 hours. Nobody else had noticed the changed text in SR4A and most everybody on DS had read Unwired and it's explicit statement that Agents can access multiple nodes and nobody had ever suggested that it was a problem.

A great many people had pointed out the Agent Smith scenario, none of whom took issue with this subject, and pretty much all of them had shut up about it since the publication of the Unwired Errata. Agent Smith has been, effectively, dead on DS for some time.
Ravor
CodeBreaker interesting, except that we are talking about two completely different things. Perhaps an example of an extremely simplized corp network would help explain what I'm talking about.

-----

Example A: Agents as I see them.

<<Entry Node>> <<Corp Network>> <<High Security Network>>

Example B: Agents as you see them.

<<Entry Node>> <<Corp Network>> <<High Security Network>> <<IC Farm A>> <<IC Farm B>> ect.. ect...

-----

In my example a Decker will only have to face the IC that each invidual node can host on his way to the paydata, in your example, the corp can simply flood their nodes with IC looking for Deckers, making it nearly impossible for a Decker to fullfill his role in the cyberpunk genre.

<<<>>>

crizh no, actually I'm talking about an old situation that was discussed time and time again since the release of Fourth Edition, which the last time I checked was allot longer than three days ago.

And what is complete nonsense is the idea that the corps pay full price on their software, how exactly do you think they are able to program Agents for sale to the masses in the first place?

Ryu
  • As long as the amount of security stays the same, the origin of matrix security assets is irrelevant for the game.
  • It is easy to justify increased matrix security for matrix security providers, as the absolute cost of hardware and software seems very low.
    • SOTA rules only hit software currently. A corp would have to pay for hardware SOTA, and it would be the more decisive cost. Software Programming cost can be shared by thousands of copies, and it is easy to change to a new standard.
    • We get to assume that transfer speeds are unlimited. A nice assumption, that could easily go away if Renraku decided to host all their matrix security in Japan.
  • I assume that matrix security for rent would come with specified service levels (like physical rent-a-cop services), and that it is unlikely to be SOTA for upkeep cost reasons. Once it is not SOTA, the dicepools you can have do not justify occupying your subscription lists with IC.


What does it do for the game if you have matrix security providers?
  • Security is standardized. You can whip out a prepared sheet and have a security setup and an Alert Response Configuration.
  • Players can learn to expect certain standards from certain MSP2s. Evil GMs don´t need a reminder that all expectations can be toyed with...
  • Hackers gain a few potentially useful knowledge skills. Have an ear on the matrix ground, know when corp X gets new hardware.
crizh
QUOTE (Ravor @ Jul 15 2009, 06:03 AM) *
crizh no, actually I'm talking about an old situation that was discussed time and time again since the release of Fourth Edition, which the last time I checked was allot longer than three days ago.


Quote a link.

QUOTE (Ravor @ Jul 15 2009, 06:03 AM) *
And what is complete nonsense is the idea that the corps pay full price on their software, how exactly do you think they are able to program Agents for sale to the masses in the first place?


Regardless of bulk discounts, or in-house coding it still costs a non-trivial amount of precious resources. Far more than outfitting a goon with a Thunderstruck or an MP Heavy Laser for example.
Wiseman
Round 3? Kinda wish this topic would stay in its own thread until we can hash it out once and for all eh.

QUOTE
1) Agents are expensive. Especially good ones.
2) A Copied Agent keeps the Access ID of the original. This means that only one of that Agent can connect to any one node at a time. Nodes will not accept multiple connections from the same ID
3) Changing that ID takes atleast 2 weeks if I remember right.


This AND subscription limits. You can only connect so many users before response degredation anyway. Counting legit accounts, necessary connections, slaved nodes, etc. - there is only so much room left over for agents to connect remotely.

The only way to bypass this is with a Botnet (all agents grouped as one), which is very limited command wise, and easy to prevent once the spider's or hacker's are "clued-in" to whats happening. Botnets are usually limited because they are often all copies with the same Access ID, so they really only help with mass probes and DDOS attacks.

Even saying a massive botnet with unique Access ID's that are logged in as one subscription means they can be spoofed as one. I can easily turn that bot army against the node they're attempting to defend.

QUOTE
OK, what we are basically talking about is a BotNet. After all, using a BotNet is really the only way you can control such a vast array of Agents. Thankfully BotNets are talked about in Unwired. Lets have a looksit shall we?


He's all over it.


QUOTE
crizh because so far the "counterarguement" isn't worth responding to, especially when you have yet to answer my simple question which I shall repeat once again.


Wait what? You don't agree, accuse others of being closed minded, but note yourself it isn't worth discussing because you're just so sure your interpertation is the right one? Bad form. What simple question? If you can't see the cost involved, the poor command function, the redundancy as a defense, and are ignoring subscription limits, then I agree, no one can answer your "simple question" to your satisfaction anyway, as stated in the first part of that sentence.

QUOTE
IF Agents worked the way that you claim they do then why doesn't everyone load up as many Agents as they can and set them loose on the Matrix like raging locusts? In the "good 'ol days" this was called the Agent Smith Army and was found to cause far more problems than it solved.


Not as individual agents anyway per the subscription limit and response degredation rules. Unless were talking about botnets (see above). This is taking for granted they each have a unique access ID to begin with.

This is no different than allowing a single rigger to command a horde of drones, possible, but expensive and ultimately easily spoofed or defended against. They cannot just subscribe 1000 drones individually to one commlink (unless they group them all and they all act as one). There are limits to how much can connect to a single node. Bear in mind this analogy is here because agents are referred to as Matrix drones.

QUOTE
The corps literally have more money than God, and the manpower necessary to make the code changes to have their army of Agents, so needing to buy or code seperate Agents is hardly a rebutal.


Oh, then they can all just retire, or maybe all the wage slaves get the luxury lifestyle for free. There is no such thing as department budgets in your world, so no one can argue against your mentality of the infinite. If this is your reasoning, then how about, because GM's should know better than to give corporations unlimited wealth. I'd love to imagine the board meeting where they discuss matrix security and try to get approval for the funding.

QUOTE
And what is complete nonsense is the idea that the corps pay full price on their software, how exactly do you think they are able to program Agents for sale to the masses in the first place?


Lets not forget the HARDWARE that has to run all those agents anyway. To run remote agents, you're actually paying the limitations cost twice. If I load an agent on my commlink, I pay the cost in processing limit. If I run it remote, I'm paying for separate hardware (if I truly want to "own" it anyway and not have it patched or discovered and removed), that hardware is paying a processing limit (meaning no 200 agents on one node), and i'm paying the subscription limit to command each. This is not even considering how many remote connections the node being defended can support above and beyond what it has allocated to personnel logged in or other needed devices slaved to the master.

Now i'm at work (shame on me) and don't have any books for crunch, but if that's the sole and only reason you reject agents accessing a node without loading onto it first, you're just not looking hard enough for why mass agents are specifically limited and excluded by the very rules that allow remote connections.

Edit* Just had to add, under the interpertation that an agent must load onto any nodes it accesses, how do you handle when an IC traces a user back to his home node and engages them in cybercombat there.

Do you now load the offending agent and all his programs onto your player's commlink, calculate the processing load for both the agent and the player, and then initiatie the slowest (if even possible without the link crashing) cybercombat in history?
Ravor
crizh use the fragging search function.

<><><>

Wiseman of course there are budgets and corp infighting, but what you seem to be forgeting is that like most things matrix security is a cost to benefit ratio and given the ever increasing costs of increasing the ( Rating ) of your nodes it is at worse a wash to run IC farms, assuming of course that you are actually running your Sixth World with an understanding of the fact that ( Rating 3-4 ) is the average and not ( Rating 6+ ).

And yes, if the IC loads itself onto the Decker's link and causes the responce to degrade than it affects both of them, but thems the breaks.

<><><>

Ryu interesting points.
CodeBreaker
As far as I can see this entire argument is based on your belief that Agents cannot run on separate nodes without being directly controlled by a Hacker and access Nodes as icons, when this is patently incorrect as shown multiple times in both the rules of Unwired and the fluff. You have shown no argument that this is not so other than that you don't think that it is fair on Hackers. A fair few people have come into this thread, directly quoted rules that show that you can load Agents by themselves, and you disregard each of these with “But that's no fair!�. So far you have completely failed to debate your position further than this, so instead of quoting rules that show that Wiseman, Crizh and myself are correct I am going to take a page out of your book and try this.

Show me, with backup from RAW, that shows that you are unable to load an Agent onto a Node and control it via subscription as it uses Icons. Once you have done that I will be perfectly happy to have an actual back and forth about the matter that transcends one half of the debaters giving valid reasons why this is possible and you just going “LIES!� every so often.

And a note on Agents, I was reading the archives and it might interest some people that Agents are unable to spoof their Access ID. Direct quote from Synner, who said that this was a mistake in the printing and that it was due to be removed in an Errata. This means that you cannot Copy/Paste Agents and simply spoof IDs for each one, you must patch them. (I know you didn't argue that this wasn't the case, just in case someone brings it up)

Also a note, no-one to my knowledge has ever said the Agent Smith problem was fixed with Unwired. In fact if I am correct Trollman, one of the chief denouncers of the SR4 Matrix specifically did not like Unwired because it legitimized using large armies of Agents as Botnets.
crizh
QUOTE (Ravor @ Jul 18 2009, 10:21 PM) *
crizh use the fragging search function.


Naw, man. You make an assertion you fragging support it with evidence.

You claimed that the ability of Agents to access a node other than the one they are running on independently is a core argument in Agent Smith debates.

I assert that this is not the case, the ease of copying Agents is the core source of the perceived Agent Smith problem.
CodeBreaker
Fuck it, bored. Decided to post some RAW quotes anyways.

QUOTE
Due to their complexity, constructs need a constant stream
of information to and from the nodes they are accessing
(see
Subscriptions, p. 55). Constructs can be attacked in cybercombat,
and the programs carried by constructs can be crashed. (For more
info, see Autonomous Programs, p. 110.)


First and foremost. Why would an Agent who needs to be Loaded onto a Node to run ever need to use a subscription? It wouldn't. The only reason would be that that Agent was accessing (Which is used almost universally throughout the book as talk for putting an Icon into a Node) a Node remotely with its program loaded into a different Node.

QUOTE
Pilots
Pilots are a special type of OS with more autonomous decision-
making ability, used in agents and drones. Unlike operating
systems or most other programs, Pilots are capable of operating
independently and maneuvering through the Matrix on their own;
see Autonomous Programs, p. 110. Like an OS, Pilots may also be
programmed with sets of commands; see Agent Scripts, p. 100.
Drone Pilots are also customized for the specific device they are
made for (see Pilot Capabilities, p. 103, Arsenal).


Ok, this one. "Pilots are capable of operating independently and maneuvering through the Matrix on their own." That means that the Agent does not need any communication with the Hacker, at all, to be functional.

QUOTE
Access ID
A system can allow access simply by the access ID of a
user. The node keeps a list of access IDs, and any construct that
attempts to log onto the node from an access ID on its list is
allowed to do so. This is a fast method of authentication, if not a
secure one, and requires only a Simple Action to log on with AR,
or a Free Action with VR.
This method is used by inconsequential utilitarian nodes, such
as garage door openers, public forums, and home appliances.


This one uses "Log onto the Node". Not Load itself onto a Node, not Transfer itself onto a Node. Log onto the Node, which is a Matrix Action that adds an Icon into that Node. More evidence that this is possible.

QUOTE
Like any Matrix user, the agent can access multiple
nodes at once. Other nodes must be accessed with passcodes
or hacked, per normal rules. The agent remains
loaded on only one node, however—though it interacts
with other nodes, it does not need to be copied and
loaded on them. (In fact, legal unmodified agents are
incapable of copying themselves in this manner


And finally! This one. This one is really the one that cements it. How, in your example of how Agents work, would an Agent be able to access multiple different nodes at once without the use of an Icon? It cannot load itself onto multiple different Nodes at once, that is restricted by the Copyright rules. This breaks your argument, if you can come up with a RAW supported argument against this I will be amazed.

And note that I still want RAW supported. Not you saying that that isn't how that Matrix should work, or the rammifications on Matrix security that this entails. And expecially not you saying something stupid like you did at first, like "I aint gonna argue this because no-one has provided a good counterargument!"
Ravor
crizh, nope, making Agents hard to copy only fixes the "Agent Smith" problem from the perspective of keeping them out of the hands of players, it hardly solves the issue since the setting demands the corps have a way to mass produce Agents lest they wouldn't be able to sell them to the masses in the first place.

Codebreaker incase you haven't noticed yet, I seldom if ever limit myself to sarcastic.gif RAW sarcastic.gif as opposed to RAI or even better, looking at the integery of the setting itself as a whole with RAW and RAI combined. And the cyberpunk genre requires that certain roles be possible, under your intruptation of Agents the role of Deckers/Slicers/Hackers is no longer a viable one so damn right I'm going to talk about it.
CodeBreaker
I see. So when you said earlier that the subject of Agents being able to access Nodes without being loaded into them was debatable what you actually meant was you have houseruled it so they can't? Wanna know the fun thing about discussing game mechanics? Generally you actually discuss the mechanics of the game, not the modified mechanics that you changed because you think it might break the atmosphere of the setting, something I disagree with by the way.

Currently a Hacker/Technomancer can basically walk into any Node and do what ever the hell he wants. Really, the chance of a Node detecting me when I am running at the Stealth ratings I sometimes do (If I need to I can fairly easily hit 20, and I know that with some work a Hacker can pull off a fairly high rating as well) is low as hell. If the introduction of more IC to Nodes makes a Matrix Run more difficult then I am all for it. At the moment a Node is either a complete cake run or I am trying to hack Zurich or something and its straight up impossible. The easiest way to get a middleground is to simply add more IC so more dice get thrown so they at least have a chance of detecting me.

Sure, one of the consequences of having Agents/IC perform the way they do means that Corps will own IC Farms. But those IC Farms are expensive as fuck. So expensive that I doubt many A Level Corps would be able to own one and would probably rent one out if anything, and even AA Level Corps would get a few. And then the AAA Level Corps? Well guess what, their high level choke points are glaciers, which makes sense both logically and according to the fluff.

And then some counters to being swamped by IC. When you hack into the Node, set up some new variables to the log-in procedure. A nice little trick is to remove all accepted accounts from the Node, and also add Pass codes. Anyone who tried to log-in to the Node will be denied and they will have to hack it to gain access. Then you take a copy of an Analysis program and start running it on the Node. That means that you will now be alerted when the Spider in control of all that Farmed IC (coining that term) sets to hacking his way in.

Technomancer Rating Rundown - Resonance of 6, Twice Submerged with Widgets and the one which gives me a forth IP.
Rating 6 Stealth + Rating 6 Threading supported by a Sprite + Rating 6 Registered Sprite using Assist (Its the most powerful in my Stable, and it is Linked to Stealth) + Rating 4 Widget. That's 22 Stealth straight out the bat that can be sustained for more than long enough to do my hack. I can push that higher by using my Rating 10 Sprite that I keep in my Stable for when the big guns are needed.

I am working on a cost rundown of an IC Farm, will post it soon enough.
crizh
I don't think the Cheat Widget adds directly to your Stealth Rating, it does add to Hacking tests so when you are rolling Stealth to avoid detection it counts but it doesn't raise the threshold to detect you when you are Hacking into a Node.

I've got a number of IC profiles I use on my own nodes if you'd like me to post them.
CodeBreaker
QUOTE (crizh @ Jul 23 2009, 04:29 PM) *
I don't think the Cheat Widget adds directly to your Stealth Rating, it does add to Hacking tests so when you are rolling Stealth to avoid detection it counts but it doesn't raise the threshold to detect you when you are Hacking into a Node.

I've got a number of IC profiles I use on my own nodes if you'd like me to post them.


Nah, I just used some of the Example IC from Unwired. Easier that way. OK!

[ Spoiler ]


Now, I am sure I missed something, but those costs seem fairly fair, maybe even a bit low at points. So, what are the grand totals?

For starting up a new IC Farm - 507550 Nuyen. Thats the initial investment. That covers first months rent, all the IC, and the clusters. It does not cover the Spiders.
Yearly Cost - 359704 Nuyen a Year. That is a lowball estimate, there is a good chance it would cost more what with Black IC liscences, the occasional Nexus breaking and whatnot. Also upgrades to the software of the IC would be required every so often, possibly rebuying all the IC as Hackers find weakpoints and corps release new stuff.

Anything I missed and needs to be thrown in as well?

crizh
System and Firewall?
CodeBreaker
QUOTE (crizh @ Jul 23 2009, 04:54 PM) *
System and Firewall?


The Nexi come prepackaged with both.

System 3, Firewall 5.

EDIT: Actually, you are correct. System would need to be buffed up to 5 to be able to run a Rating 5 Agent at maximum efficiency. There are rules for that in Unwired, but it means making a custom Nexi and I cannot really be bothered with it at the moment.

Suffice to say that adds some more Nuyen to the Nexus Cluster bit. Not that much, maybe 10k total.
crizh
How about Processor Limit 15, Persona Limit 10 (3/-/6/6), Optimized?

Those will set you back 8000 each and can run up to 2 fully loaded Rating 6 IC's.

I would buy them in multiples of 12 with 3 each optimized for Analyse, Track, Nuke and Blackout. That would be a hardware cost of 96000 for 4 teams of 6 IC's divided into Spotters, Trackers, Agent Countermeasures and Hacker Countermeasures.
Cthulhudreams
I love that someone in this thread said that corps cannot use cracked programs. Dude, corps WROTE the programs. They actually own the actual IP. Any use by them is free! They have unlimited licenses! They do not care about copy protection!

Given the ease of writing shadowrun programs, a corporation only needs about 40 guys to have R6 programs in every category, and it can issue unlimited numbers of them to every employee.

A megacorp is going to have a software branch with more than 40 guys in it. How many people do you think Renraku employs? A million?

You'd be totally wrong. Ford alone has 2 million employees, and these companies own several major car firms each. Total employee counts are probably north of 50 million. Enough guys to custom write and maintain every program in the book at R6 is less than 0.000001% of their IT operating budget, and is cheaper than buying a copy of R1 software for every employee... the US federal government only employes 14.6 million people including the military and contractors. Are you seriously telling me the US government doesn't have more than 4,000 people custom developing software? hahaha.

When considering a megacorporation, all software (and thus firewalls and system) should be considered A) free and B) r6.
crizh
Did we not thrash this out already?

Software costs resources. What percentage of the retail price a corp 'pays' isn't really relevant, accountants like to see numbers on a page.

Corporations do not now, nor is there any reason to believe they will in the SR future, supply their own sub-divisions with their own products for free. Everything is costed and accounted for and passes through the books.

Similarly, regardless of the ease with which all software can be copied could mean that all corporate software could be Rating 6, it patently is not.

For whatever reason SR has an abstract Rating system for software that ranges from 1 to 6. You might as well ditch that whole system if you conclude that all corporate systems contain only Rating 6 software.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (crizh @ Jul 23 2009, 06:12 PM) *
Did we not thrash this out already?

Software costs resources. What percentage of the retail price a corp 'pays' isn't really relevant, accountants like to see numbers on a page.

Corporations do not now, nor is there any reason to believe they will in the SR future, supply their own sub-divisions with their own products for free. Everything is costed and accounted for and passes through the books.

Similarly, regardless of the ease with which all software can be copied could mean that all corporate software could be Rating 6, it patently is not.

For whatever reason SR has an abstract Rating system for software that ranges from 1 to 6. You might as well ditch that whole system if you conclude that all corporate systems contain only Rating 6 software.



Just a little reminder... Rating 6 Software is the maximum for Commercially available software...Cutting Edge programs, with a rating of 7+, do in fact exist... See Sidebar (Cutting Edge), Page 112 of Unwired...
crizh
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jul 24 2009, 02:33 AM) *
Just a little reminder... Rating 6 Software is the maximum for Commercially available software...Cutting Edge programs, with a rating of 7+, do in fact exist... See Sidebar (Cutting Edge), Page 112 of Unwired...


Yes, yes they do.

And if you are hacking into the Zurich Orbital Terrestrial Substation you deserve to come face to face with Rating 8 IC and have to avoid it's Rating 9 Firewall.

But you better believe that Z-O pays millions every month to keep their software that far past the bleeding edge.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (crizh @ Jul 23 2009, 06:38 PM) *
Yes, yes they do.

And if you are hacking into the Zurich Orbital Terrestrial Substation you deserve to come face to face with Rating 8 IC and have to avoid it's Rating 9 Firewall.

But you better believe that Z-O pays millions every month to keep their software that far past the bleeding edge.



No Doubt... But your economics are a littel off If I may say so... A Programmer Geek in a basement, given time can indeed program a rating 8 IC (Eventually) and it would never degrade per the rules... Not Millions of Nuyen in my opinion, just a lot of time and energy...
crizh
Presumably after he is done writing his System 8.

edit

I reckon that will take two years, followed by a further year to write the Agent. Assuming a lifestyle cost of 10k p.m. that is a development cost of 360,000 nuyen.gif

Assuming the GM doesn't, quite reasonably, scale the time and difficulty up for 'military grade' code.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (crizh @ Jul 23 2009, 06:43 PM) *
Presumably after he is done writing his System 8.



Nah... just add 2 levels of Optimization to the IC
crizh
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jul 24 2009, 02:44 AM) *
Nah... just add 2 levels of Optimization to the IC


IC does not accept program options.

edit

Sorry, you ninja'd my previous edit above.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (crizh @ Jul 23 2009, 06:49 PM) *
IC does not accept program options.


Actually it Does...

IC can support an Agent Autosoft... According to the Program Option "Optimization" it can be added to an autosoft program, of which IC is (So is an Agent or Pilot Program)... Therefore the Optimization of the IC is Valid... See Pages 112 to 115 of Unwired... it is there in plain text...
Cthulhudreams
QUOTE (crizh @ Jul 24 2009, 11:12 AM) *
Did we not thrash this out already?

Software costs resources. What percentage of the retail price a corp 'pays' isn't really relevant, accountants like to see numbers on a page.

Corporations do not now, nor is there any reason to believe they will in the SR future, supply their own sub-divisions with their own products for free. Everything is costed and accounted for and passes through the books.


Actually lots of corporations do provide IT services for 'free' with no charge backs or cost showings. I will deploy facts from reputable multinational research companies, while you are deploying made up statements, also known as lies.

QUOTE
Only 60.5% of IT departments were using some form of chargeback
only 28% were charging back 100% of IT costs.
only 52% of those doing charge back verified that IT costs are actually appearing on end user budgets as an expense.


Source: Forrester Research

So, what, 30% of corporate sub divisions actually have to budget as an expense corporate IT costs? That isn't even close to half, let alone most.

If you're going to make statements about current practices which are actually measurable, please make sure they are correct. Now, having established that not charging for basic IT services is common place today, why would that change in the future?

Incidentally, I hope you don't work in an IT organization doing charge back. Why would you chargeback the full 'sticker' price if your unit price was was 1 nuyen? Isn't the goal to drive efficiencies?

Anyway, having comprehensively proved that the statement "Corporations do not now, nor is there any reason to believe they will in the SR future, supply their own sub-divisions with their own products for free." is wrong with regards to IT services, which is the topic under discussion, I look forward to a full retraction and apology. I won't get it, but it should be funny!
crizh
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jul 24 2009, 02:54 AM) *
Actually it Does...

IC can support an Agent Autosoft... According to the Program Option "Optimization" it can be added to an autosoft program, of which IC is (So is an Agent or Pilot Program)... Therefore the Optimization of the IC is Valid... See Pages 112 to 115 of Unwired... it is there in plain text...


Agents are not Autosofts.

Agents may run Autosofts.

Agents are Constructs.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (crizh @ Jul 23 2009, 07:01 PM) *
Agents are not Autosofts.

Agents may run Autosofts.

Agents are Constructs.



So they are... I would call it a gray area (though definitely houserule territory)
So a Rating 8 system it is... Not impossible for the competent Computer Geek Programmer... And again, no degradation...
crizh
Do me a favour and stow the attitude. That's the third snarky post from you in about an hour. With no provocation whatsoever I might add.

QUOTE (Cthulhudreams @ Jul 24 2009, 02:58 AM) *
Actually lots of corporations do provide IT services for 'free' with no charge backs or cost showings. I will deploy facts from reputable multinational research companies, while you are deploying made up statements, also known as lies.

QUOTE
Only 60.5% of IT departments were using some form of chargeback
only 28% were charging back 100% of IT costs.
only 52% of those doing charge back verified that IT costs are actually appearing on end user budgets as an expense.


Source: Forrester Research

So, what, 30% of corporate sub divisions actually have to budget as an expense corporate IT costs? That isn't even close to half, let alone most.

If you're going to make statements about current practices which are actually measurable, please make sure they are correct. Now, having established that not charging for basic IT services is common place today, why would that change in the future?

Incidentally, I hope you don't work in an IT organization doing charge back. Why would you chargeback the full 'sticker' price if your unit price was was 1 nuyen? Isn't the goal to drive efficiencies?

Anyway, having comprehensively proved that the statement "Corporations do not now, nor is there any reason to believe they will in the SR future, supply their own sub-divisions with their own products for free." is wrong with regards to IT services, which is the topic under discussion, I look forward to a full retraction and apology. I won't get it, but it should be funny!


So most sub-divisions do charge back some percentage of the sticker price of the services they supply?

So some percentage of the sticker price of any piece of software used by the company that produces it appears on their balance sheet somewhere?

My guess is the corporations like Microsoft charge themselves for their own software at 'cost' if for no other reason than to avoid paying tax.

And before you jump on the word 'cost' like a slavering twit let me clarify that to mean whatever the IRS, or whoever M$ actually pays tax to, is willing to accept as the 'cost' price of a piece of software you have developed yourself.
crizh
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jul 24 2009, 03:07 AM) *
And again, no degradation...


Which suddenly strikes me as an odd rule.

Presumably MCT, or whoever, must spend resources every month patching software so that it maintains it's edge against competitors and Hackers. If they did not produce a patch for the software they wrote it would degrade. Odd that Renraku's code degrades but a basement hacker's does not.

This patching cycle also speaks to the 'cost' of software. Regardless of how little it costs to copy your own code it still costs you man hours to patch it every month, man hours that you charge normal customers for up front.
Cthulhudreams
No, it's not 'some percentage of the sticker price' it's that they've implemented some sort of show back mechanism. This seriously includes telling the executive 'we've provided you with 560k of services this month!' and then them getting ignored.

For what YOU said, YOUR example with the budgets, only 30% of IT departments do that.

As for your example with the IRS... dude, that is what I said. That is the scenario I described. You expense the cost of software development - 40 guys - and then that is all the IRS will let you expense. If you try and expense that cost of software 50 million times (once for each employee), the IRS will rape you with broomsticks.

crizh
QUOTE (Cthulhudreams @ Jul 24 2009, 03:20 AM) *
For what YOU said, YOUR example with the budgets, only 30% of IT departments do that.


If 30% of Renraku's subdivisions charge back an average of 40% of the sticker price of their product/service then 12% of the sticker price of all software in use at Renraku is charged back to the company.

Which, I'm pretty sure, is what I already said.

It doesn't matter how low that percentage is. Writing the software, copying it x times and installing it x times costs money. Maybe not actual nuyen.gif but resources like man hours that are the same thing as far as a corporation is concerned. It all affects the bottom line in direct proportion to the number of programs used and their Ratings.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (crizh @ Jul 23 2009, 07:18 PM) *
Which suddenly strikes me as an odd rule.

Presumably MCT, or whoever, must spend resources every month patching software so that it maintains it's edge against competitors and Hackers. If they did not produce a patch for the software they wrote it would degrade. Odd that Renraku's code degrades but a basement hacker's does not.

This patching cycle also speaks to the 'cost' of software. Regardless of how little it costs to copy your own code it still costs you man hours to patch it every month, man hours that you charge normal customers for up front.



I see that as the software on the current market... it is designed to degrade, so that the Corp can extract massive amounts of money on the patches for everyone's software that they MUST get patched to function efficiently, or buy a whole new software package/bundle...

The basement hacker goes for optimization and efficiency... and I would assume that the patching is still there, though it takes no actual time to do so for mechanical purposes... Working in the industry, I have seen substantial patches to major proprietary software in as little as a few hours from failure to fix... Not always, but it does happen... it is all in the quality of the programmer and the code...

In this regard... I would make an assumption that the Corp's Spiders are using whatever SOTA software that they use, and it does not degrade... because a Corp can afford to give its own Spiders SOTA programs...the general public receives the commercial stuff...
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