From a GM perspective...if I set up a network for a run, and I have a rule that you can only access Node B from Node A, am I breaking any sort of rules or being unfair to my players? I mean, if I want Node B to only be visible from Node A, can I not do that? So, no matter what sort of hacking, scanning, spoofing, exploiting...nothing can be done to Node B until the hacker is in Node A...

And then the same goes the other way, is there anything against a hacker setting up his dual commlinks in a way that it is not possible to see Comm 2 unless you have already accessed Comm 1? I really don't care about the particulars, but if the player and GM agree that yeah, that is possible, I'll let you do it, is there any need for more detail? I mean, the rule then is that for this instance, Comm 2 cannot be hacked because it is not visible or accessable unless you are "in" Comm 1.

Assuming I don't care about how it is done, tracking subscriptions, whether implemented by hardware, software, wired or wireless...that is it just so (as I know it is possible in the real world, but why do I have to try and figure it all out for a game)...

Just a question/comment. My take is, that if I design a network for my players to break into, and I say that certain nodes only are accessible from other nodes, well, then that is the case, no way around...I don't think that is causing problems or imbalance. That's basically saying that in order to get into the "kitchen", you are going to have to walk through the "living room"...right?

Well, even wireless...I mean, I don't think its okay to just say, "that node can't be hacked", but I am fine with saying, "that node can't be hacked unless you are hacking it from Node B, so why don't you hack that node first".

Okay, I see your point with the physical connection...I mean, a radio wave is a radio wave.

But, what if in order to access Node A, you have to have some random, encrypted, changing code synched up with Node B, and only when you are passing the data to Node A and it confirming it with Node B do you have access...

I guess my point here, is that I could come up with complexity after complexity, layer after layer of security and obstacles and subject the hacker to jumping through all those hoops, just to say, yeah, it can be hacked, but you'll have find a loophole in the 100 steps I have outlined above...

Or, I could not have to think about it and say, um, yeah, if you are in Node B, not only do you see Node A, but you can now attempt to access/hack it... Now there may be some infintismally rare exploit available to access Node A without Node B, but...does one really need to get into that low level detail?

Again, I think from a "player" perspective, a lot of people are afraid of getting hacked all the time and want to be able to say thier comm can't be hacked...in reality, I've run for close to a year with the same group and only once have I ever had a desire to hack a player's commlink...and I did, stole some phone numbers and the team's hacker eventually found out and traced it back. The group doesn't have a single agent, IC or anything besides a decent firewall and I think that is safe enough, even for runners...

That's an interesting argument, but it doesn't really matter - it doesn't explain the other tricks, but it does so for chains:

'Not all networks are configured as mesh networks—many corporate systems, in fact, retain a traditional tiered network structure. In a tiered structure, some systems can only be accessed through another system first, with the most secure systems hiding behind several layers of security. '

That's enough to work with, and the meaning is pretty clear: If there is A, B and C in a tiered network, you need to hack A first, then B, then C - instead of simply C in a meshed wifi network.

Mostly that's because it doesn't need knowledge prior to SR4, as the terms tiered network and meshed network are 'real' terms.