Steak and Spirits
Sep 22 2006, 10:54 PM
Yes. That's one device, with different functions.
One function finds range. One function lays Augmented Reality into a users vision field. Another function manages ammunition.
What's the problem?
Rotbart van Dainig
Sep 22 2006, 11:01 PM
There is none... if you hack the smartgun, you get access to any of them.
If you hack the cyberarm because someone left it's interfaces on, you do so, too.
ReallyBored
Sep 22 2006, 11:08 PM
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) |
There is none... if you hack the smartgun, you get access to any of them. If you hack the cyberarm because someone left it's interfaces on, you do so, too. |
Thing is, in a smartgun link, there's a plausable reason that all said functions would need to connect to the wireless interface. In a cyberarm, there isn't any reason whatsoever for the control systems to connect to the wireless link. The controls should like directly to the nerves at the mount point and from there to the brain. The signal path for your cyberarm shouldn't leave your body. Now there might be some sort of diagnostic module that maintains, I dunno, the time until my next tuneup and maybe some idiot lights if things break (what was the first clue your arm was busted, the AR warning it gave or the smoke coming out of your elbow?). All those functions should be physically isolated from the control paths.
Steak and Spirits
Sep 22 2006, 11:10 PM
QUOTE |
There is none... if you hack the smartgun, you get access to any of them. If you hack the cyberarm because someone left it's interfaces on, you do so, too. |
Why would the part of a smartlink that ejects clips from a weapon interface with the part of a smartlink that creates augmented reality overlays in a user's vision?
ReallyBored
Sep 22 2006, 11:13 PM
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits @ Sep 22 2006, 06:10 PM) |
QUOTE | There is none... if you hack the smartgun, you get access to any of them. If you hack the cyberarm because someone left it's interfaces on, you do so, too. |
Why would the part of a smartlink that ejects clips from a weapon interface with the part of a smartlink that creates augmented reality overlays in a user's vision?
|
Because you might not be controlling the smartlink through DNI, so the eject clip command would need some sort of AR presense in the smartlink AR overlay to interact with. In any case, the eject clip function probably does have some linkage to the wireless interface itself, so that you can send it the eject command. In SR4, hacking a device is more akin to hooking into the wireless interface of the device, rather than a specific function of the device. If someone manages to get a hook into the wireless interface of the smartgun, he could access multiple functions that are conencted to it.
Steak and Spirits
Sep 22 2006, 11:18 PM
Doubtful - A trained physical reflex would do the job just as well, and close a major security loophole.
ReallyBored
Sep 22 2006, 11:26 PM
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits @ Sep 22 2006, 06:18 PM) |
Doubtful - A trained physical reflex would do the job just as well, and close a major security loophole. |
How is the smartgun receiving the input from the physical reflex? It doesn't have that many interfaces available.
edit to add: I could buy that the ejection command has it's own separate AR overlay, but that seems needlessly complex, especially since both would route through the same wireless interface.
Steak and Spirits
Sep 22 2006, 11:31 PM
A smartlink has an induction port in the palm, that interfaces with the weapon. That means it already has a fingerprint in that portion of the body - A trained reflex with a finger isn't too far fetched. This is assuming that smartlinked weapons don't just have a little button on the side that can be quickly tapped with a finger to force an ejection.
Rotbart van Dainig
Sep 22 2006, 11:41 PM
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits) |
A smartlink has an induction port in the palm, that interfaces with the weapon. |
No. It has a wireless interface, a wire port and, if installed, a skinlink.
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits) |
Why would the part of a smartlink that ejects clips from a weapon interface with the part of a smartlink that creates augmented reality overlays in a user's vision? |
Except from integration - the smartlink is in the eye?
ReallyBored
Sep 22 2006, 11:43 PM
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits) |
A smartlink has an induction port in the palm, that interfaces with the weapon. That means it already has a fingerprint in that portion of the body - A trained reflex with a finger isn't too far fetched. This is assuming that smartlinked weapons don't just have a little button on the side that can be quickly tapped with a finger to force an ejection. |
I believe the palm induction port for smartlinks went away by default in SR4, especially since it is possible to have a smartlink system installed in contacts. The equivalent would be using a smartlink w/ skinlink, at which point the whole wireless hack problem goes away. As for a manual eject button, I agree it should be easy, but physically ejecting a clip is already listed as a simple action, with a smartgun eject as a free action.
Mistwalker
Sep 23 2006, 12:05 AM
I can see anyone who has a run of the mill cyberlimb with no augments or additions or special abilities would probably turn off any wireless connection to it and only have the automatic actions and DNI connections.
If they wanted more things attached, it would probably be wireless, and hence parts of it hackable.
But I can also see a hacker hack into the Commlink and be able to affect the cyberlimb, but have to go thru a bit if IC to get there.
As for the smartgun link, as long as it is wireless, the hacker can just hack the weapon, as it is geared to respond to commands sent to it. Again, as previously mentioned by ReallyBored, skinlink in the palm would remove this problem. That is as long as you set up the weapon to do only accept skinlink commands.
Steak and Spirits
Sep 23 2006, 09:31 AM
Well. I guess it boils down to the type of game you want to run.
If you have equipment installed into a cyberlimb that requires wireless access of some sort, then that equipment should be hackable, because the medium that it requires to transmit data, is hackable. The fine motor control part of a cyberlimb, however, should never require wireless access for anything, and thus should be unhackable.
If you're deadset on allowing all parts of any augmentation that have no functional benefit from using wireless communication, to be run wirelessly, you should make it clear to your players that it creates a huge, unrealistic security hole, and that they should run hardlines through their body instead, to fix that.
Further, as a player under a gaming environment that insisted cyberlimbs in their entirety could be hacked, rather than portions that relied on a hackable medium, I'd immediately inform my GM that I was getting pre-2070 augmentations, where cybernetic augmentations were hardlined. There is not a single reason why anyone would opt for 2070 technology over 2060 technology, unless the augmentation they were looking for absolutely -required- wireless technology.
There's just no way to justify the huge security hole you open yourself up to, when the benefit for doing so is non-existant.
Rotbart van Dainig
Sep 23 2006, 12:21 PM
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits @ Sep 23 2006, 11:31 AM) |
If you're deadset on allowing all parts of any augmentation that have no functional benefit from using wireless communication, to be run wirelessly, you should make it clear to your players that it creates a huge, unrealistic security hole, and that they should run hardlines through their body instead, to fix that. |
Honestly, your whole issue seems very artificial:
Guess what the rules say about wireless interfaces - if you don't need them, turn them off... or don't get one with wireless capability in the first place, or remove it.
Oh, and let me repeat myself: Cyberware already gets hardwired internally for communication - for free.
As long as there is an active network path to an implant, it can be hacked. If you don't want it to be hacked at all, under any circumstances... turn off all network interfaces.
Steak and Spirits
Sep 23 2006, 12:49 PM
It's not artificial at all. You're stating that any time a device has a single wireless component installed into it, the entire device is completely hackable. As if the servo-motor controls of a cyberarm would be wired-right together with the flip-up trideo unit installed into the forearm.
Which defies logic, playability, and the notion that technology has somehow 'advanced' over the last 10 years.
Rotbart van Dainig
Sep 23 2006, 12:56 PM
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits) |
It's not artificial at all. |
It is, because every single ' recommendation' you brought up 'if the rules say that' is exactly what the rules say.
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits) |
You're stating that any time a device has a single wireless component installed into it, the entire device is completely hackable. |
No, that's what the rules state.
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits) |
As if the servo-motor controls of a cyberarm would be wired-right together with the flip-up trideo unit installed into the forearm. |
The cyberarm starts itself with an interface that allows full control... it's just a free action to turn those off.
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits) |
Which defies logic, playability, and the notion that technology has somehow 'advanced' over the last 10 years. |
Not at all. Clustering is what current developments are all about.
Steak and Spirits
Sep 23 2006, 01:06 PM
Heh.
Alright. So let me get this straight.
If I use a 2060 Cyberarm, and then install a cellular phone into it, I'm fine.
If I use a 2070 Cyberarm, and no additional pieces of equipment with wireless access into it, I'm fine.
If I use a 2070 Cyberarm, and include a cellular phone in it, someone can hack the servo-motor, despite the fact that there would be no reason to interface a servo-motor together with a cellular phone?
Rotbart van Dainig
Sep 23 2006, 01:13 PM
No.
There is only one question that matters:
Is there an active wireless network connection connected to the cyberarm itself?
Steak and Spirits
Sep 23 2006, 01:16 PM
The cyberarm itself is different that the cellular phone inside the cyberarm.
Therefore, there should never be, under any circumstance, a reason for the cyberarm to have an active wireless connection.
Whether or not the cellular phone, inside the cyberarm, has an active wireless interface will determine whether or not the cellular phone, inside the cyberarm, can be hacked.
Whether or not the cellular phone, inside the cyberarm, has an active wireless interface, will NOT determine whether or not the cybernetic arm, which has no purpose for open wireless connections, can be hacked.
Mistwalker
Sep 23 2006, 01:19 PM
I can't see a hacker taking control of your cyberarm to use it to strangle you, or even to fire your gun. I mostly see them either turning it off, or having it waving around randomly, fighting you for control of it, to stop you from doing......
The neural interfaces needed for control of a cyberlimb have to be huge, specially for fine control like fingers. So, the hacker could not figure out in a short time how to get your arm to point a gun at your head and pull the trigger.
Now, if he had a lot of time, like weeks, he could probably work something out to allow him to do stuff like that, but that is a long term hack, needing access to your arm a few times. Hmm, could make a great plot line....
Rotbart van Dainig
Sep 23 2006, 01:21 PM
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits) |
The cyberarm itself is different that the cellular phone inside the cyberarm. |
That depends on the level of integration...
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits) |
Therefore, there should never be, under any circumstance, a reason for the cyberarm to have an active wireless connection. |
That's your opinion - and the rules not only allow that, but recommened it.
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits) |
Whether or not the cellular phone, inside the cyberarm, has an active wireless interface, will NOT determine whether or not the cybernetic arm, which has no purpose for open wireless connections, can be hacked. |
Wrong. If the cellular phone is interfaced or integrated into the cyberarm, to make use of DNI access, it opens up said hole.
QUOTE (Mistwalker) |
Now, if he had a lot of time, like weeks, he could probably work something out to allow him to do stuff like that, but that is a long term hack, needing access to your arm a few times. |
No. All he needs is a Control Program, or to install a Pilot on your Cyberarm.
Steak and Spirits
Sep 23 2006, 01:40 PM
QUOTE |
That depends on the level of integration... |
Yes, you are correct. That level of integration is as follows - If the Cellular phone is trunked together with the Cyberarm, that level of integration exists. If that Cellular phone is not trunked together with the cyberarm, and the two devices do not interact, as they SHOULD NOT, it does not exist.
The only reason a cellular phone would ever be integrated with a cyberarm on that level is if it was designed by a hacker with the explicit plan of hacking it.
QUOTE |
That's your opinion - and the rules not only allow that, but recommened it. |
Well, let me make a recommendation to all players who use Cyberware, then - Insist that it is installed as seperate components, as it should be, or use 2060 cyberware.
QUOTE |
Wrong. If the cellular phone is interfaced or integrated into the cyberarm, to make use of DNI access, it opens up said hole. |
The cellular phone does not need to share paths with the cyberarm to the DNI. It can utilize it's own path.
----------------------
All of your interpretations of this, R, have been in a scenario written by hackers, for the sole purpose of hacking things. Since people are much more inclined to buy cyberware created with the intention of not being hackable, than they are to buy cyberware from people with the intention of it being hackable, I can only assume that Economic Natural Selection will have weeded out all your Hacker Cybernetic Vendors.
I do not dispute that having an outside link to a device allows it to be hackable - Such as a cellphone, inside of a cyberarm. Or the AG portion of a Smartlink - But there are absolutely no circumstances whatsoever that would call for the complete physical trunking of all functions in any given piece of equipment, together.
Rotbart van Dainig
Sep 23 2006, 01:48 PM
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits) |
The only reason a cellular phone would ever be integrated with a cyberarm on that level is if it was designed by a hacker with the explicit plan of hacking it. [...] The cellular phone does not need to share paths with the cyberarm to the DNI. It can utilize it's own path. |
Which costs money and essence for the additional DNI - which you can save if integrating it to the cyberarm.
And if there is something to save, people will do it.
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits) |
Since people are much more inclined to buy cyberware created with the intention of not being hackable, than they are to buy cyberware from people with the intention of it being hackable, I can only assume that Economic Natural Selection will have weeded out all your Hacker Cybernetic Vendors. |
That's too much of a simplification, sorry.
There is no hurt in having a wireless interface installed that is turned off - as you can turn it on to perform noninvasive maintainance.
If you have a datajack or implanted commlink, you can safely remove the wireless interface in the cyberarm, as it can be maintained by the internally wired interface conected to those, which can be turned off, too.
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits) |
But there are absolutely no circumstances whatsoever that would call for the complete physical trunking of all functions in any given piece of equipment, together. |
Those circumstances are c&c - convenience and comfort.
Everything works over a single connection, simplifying things.
Steak and Spirits
Sep 23 2006, 02:17 PM
QUOTE |
Which costs money and essence for the additional DNI - which you can save if integrating it to the cyberarm. |
Nope. Come standard with a Direct Neural Interface. SR:4, Page 330. There's no essence to be saved, one way, or another. Therefore, no reason, real or imagined, not to seperate traffic at functional levels.
QUOTE |
That's too much of a simplification, sorry. There is no hurt in having a wireless interface installed that is turned off - as you can turn it on to perform noninvasive maintainance. If you have a datajack or implanted commlink, you can safely remove the wireless interface in the cyberarm, as it can be maintained by the internally wired interface conected to those, which can be turned off, too. |
There is no hurt in having a wireless interface installed that is turned off - Neither is there hurt in having the wireless interface of a seperate device turned on, because the two are FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED from each other.
QUOTE |
Those circumstances are c&c - convenience and comfort. Everything works over a single connection, simplifying things. |
There's nothing convient or comforting about the massive security holes you're proposing as Standard.
Mistwalker
Sep 23 2006, 02:20 PM
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) |
QUOTE (Mistwalker) | Now, if he had a lot of time, like weeks, he could probably work something out to allow him to do stuff like that, but that is a long term hack, needing access to your arm a few times. |
No. All he needs is a Control Program, or to install a Pilot on your Cyberarm.
|
How would those know which commands to use?
For a drone, there are a certain number of functions that are fairly easily to figure out, and there are the sensors that let you know where the parts are (height, angle, etc..) incorporated in them.
A cyberarm uses the nerve impulses from a metahuman, and each one is different, as well as there are no built in sensors that let you know exactly where the arm parts are (i.e.: bend at the elbow, whole arm raised, wrist cocked, finger pointing or curled, etc..).
I suppose that you could also hack the cybereyes as well, and use those to know where the arm is, but that would add another level to the hack, and I would impose a penalty on controlling the arm.
Learning how to use you cyberlimbs takes time, and that was incorporated in the previous rules (and probably will be in Augmented when it comes out).
I never played, or allowed to be played, someone get's a new cyberarm, has heal cast to completely heal up from the surgery, and walk out with full control of the arm. It still took quite a while to learn how to control your arm, so that it becomes unconscious control, the way we do with our natural arms.
Rotbart van Dainig
Sep 23 2006, 02:29 PM
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits) |
Come standard with a Direct Neural Interface. SR:4, Page 330. There's no essence to be saved, one way, or another. Therefore, no reason, real or imagined, not to seperate traffic at functional levels. |
Wrong. Those rules apply for cyberware - which only the cyberarm is.
The cellphone is either integrated into it, and thus accessible as part of the cyberarm and it's DNI, has an extra DNI installed because it is not integrated, ord has to be used manually.
Again: By integrating the cellphone into the cyberarm, you save the costs of installing the additional DNI.
QUOTE (Steak and Spirits) |
There's nothing convient or comforting about the massive security holes you're proposing as Standard. |
Those devices are produced for Joe Average. He does not want to worry about separation - he wants to be able to make one connection and expects everything to just work.
'Security', to him, is the synonym for 'nuisance'.
Steak and Spirits
Sep 23 2006, 02:42 PM
Alright, alright. Can we agree that -if- the Cellular Phone had it's own DNI, seperate from the Cyberarm, it would not institute a security hole, in the cyberarm itself?
Mistwalker
Sep 23 2006, 02:51 PM
Grin
Sure, but if the cellphone is linked to the cyberears or cybereyes (to receive video or text or images)....
Even if the cellphone is only attached to your original ears, the hacker could still hack and cause painfull feedback until you turned off you phone. Hmm, which may have been the whole reason for the hack....