I don't think that's how it works in SR4, though. Routing is free and easy. It Just Works™. You just route up to any mesh device, *anything*, that's in range of/connected to the target.

I'm really quite surprised nobody's yet picked up on this because it really, really isn't true.

Commlinks own their own wireless functionality - it's not like today where you need an ISP to hire out the use of their cables to you. When a commlink tries to communicate wirelessly with another active node (either in MSR or by routing) be it his buddy's 'link two feet to the left or a big corporate nexus on the other side of the planet, it will do so. There's no inherent physical or legal obstruction that having an MSP will circumvent.

MSPs (IIRC, AFB) are simply there to provide Matrix services like commcodes, secure data storage and access to common use programs (Browse in particular). They make the experience easier and more pleasant for almost all 'Trix-surfers, but that's not usually much of a priority to SINless shadowrunners.

The DS forum server is not a router. The correct analogy would be "when you are accessing Microsoft's servers via a router (which you do unless directly plugged into the server), can you hack them or does the simple retransmission done by the router make hacking impossible?"


Option one, hacking or routers does not work:
"Right, I'll do a quick virtual dungeon crawl though the cleaning drone, ceiling light, bad guy A's commlink and bad guy B's underwear to finally reach bad guy B's commlink. Then I'll screw around with all devices in his PAn which are directly connected to the commlink. Maybe you guys want to watch some TV while me and the GM do all that?"

Option two, routers do not provide some sort of magical barrier to hackers:
"I start hacking bad guy B's commlink, next round his smartlink is toast"


Which of the two makes a hacker more useful?

Yes. But...



That's a problem with the system that needs to be fixed.

What says you have to hack every node to establish a route. Unwired says routing is automatic.

You don't have to hack every node you use as a path to Big Bob's. That makes no sense at all! Most nodes give you public access, which is more than enough to gain a subscription and move on. You only hack what you need to hack. Over-complicating it again...

Public access does not allow you to programs, good luck hacking without one

Besides, neither drones nor underwear should have a public account, and inside a corp installation even toggling the lights requires you to be an authentified user of the corp network.



...which is why I consider the "you can only hack in signal range" passage an oversight by the writers, just like the unstoppable ghoul apocalypse

It isn't necessary to run programs in a node with a public account when making a path, you just need to make a path. No need to hack these nodes. Public accounts log you on to a node and open a subscription. From there, you hack.

Plus I think the idea of having to have an open subscription to hack a node is the contradiction in the rules when it seems obvious that your goal in hacking is to open a subscription using a hacked account. Therefore it makes no sense to have to open a subscription first before you hack saying the contradiction in the rules would make that impossible...


Ah forget it, I think most of us agree here. I feel like I am really just preaching to the quire... The rules are jacked up and it is best if you don't over think them or it gets too complicated...

Let's assume you have a chain of nodes from node 1 (your commlink) to node n (the target host).
Hacking node n requires you to run an exploit program on node n-1, so you need to hack node n-1 for user rights. Hacking node n-1 requires you to run an exploit program on node n-2, so you need to hack node n-2 for user rights...

re·cur·sion (rɪˈkɜːʃən)
n. Mathematics
See ->recursion


Yeah, we just disagree about how much insanity this obvious error by the authors generates ^^

You're not running the program on the node. If you were, it would count toward that node's program limit, and it doesn't. Unless you want to do that specfically, in which case you don't get your bonuses anyway.

Hacking's supposed to be simple. Auto-routing, hack in, boom. There are plenty of ways to lock down nodes, but also plenty of room for hackers to play in. Cuz it's a game.

Good catch on the MSP thing, Aerospider. That's explicitly given in the SR4A.

Eh, I was gonna write something but forget it. I 'll just stick to trying to run it the way I always have. With these rules, whatever makes sense should work for you!

I agree 100% with the above post.

Why am I running my Exploit program in the routing nodes instead of my own commlink?

Exactly... You aren't... or at least, you shouldn't be...
Your programs run off of your 'link... all except the IC/Worms/Agents that you drop in the target node that is...

Routing is not Hacking...

Hacking occurs at the endpoint, not in between, unless the system architecture you are intent upon hacking has multiple layers, then of course, you must penetrate each and every layer before finding the data/device you are seeking...

Keep the Faith

If you had to subscribe to every node you're routed to, then you'd hit your subscription limit pretty fast.

Another problem is the vagueness about "accounts" and "access"; sometimes it seems you can have access either with or without an account. (And, of course, the vagueness about what level of account you need, and what you could do as Admin; shut down IC?)

If hacking was only possible from a node in mutual signal range and rounting made hacking impossible, you would have to run the exploit program on a node in mutual signal range.


That would be horribly complicated, completely against the design philosophy of the new matrix and basically make hackers unplayable? Congratulations, you got my point

Exploit:

Hack the nearby major traffic hub to use Sam the Street Sammy's comlink that he's using for AR to become the next major hop for the regional matrix.

Now his comlink smokes under the load.

The problem with mesh network is that it's INCREDIBLY inefficient in a wireless environment. It also sounds like the wireless matrix includes inherent blind trust of all neighboring nodes when it comes to routing traffic. I find that hard to believe after 20 years of deckers/hackers running rampant nobody would design a system that makes such things a little more difficult. In fact, in fluff, it's to the contrary. A new matrix system was built from the *ground* up, and instead of making it more difficult to do illicit stuff, they instead in many ways made it a *lot* easier.

The only thing I can imagine is that routers are hardwired to seek out different paths as needed, just like they redirect signals from other nodes automatically. Maybe you would have to physicaly alter the traffic hub to melt that commlink. Or maybe they're designed in a way that they can handle whatever traffic you throw at them. I guess I have two points;

1) the future is magic, we don't understand it.
2) there's many things in SR done for game balance, or cinematic effect, so you have to wave your hands a little at the details

I assume that it's communism; no device is given more traffic than it can handle, and all devices freely help. *shrug* Don't really care, in the end.

I would agree that the above is probably the reality. It seems to impy in the routing section that data is constantly rerouted if need be.

RL Load balancing at work. S.E.T.I. does that by getting people to subscribe to their services and then uses your idle CPU cycles to crunch their numbers. Or at least they did. Not sure if they still are.

Still, that would make an interesting plot hook. Deus part million & 3, anyone? @=)

(runs away to hide).

I think SETI@home is still active, but for the most part its been subsumed by a larger conglomerate called World Community Grid. The last time I had it installed my computer used its free cycles computing the folding of proteins (for cancer research).

Had a really nifty screensaver too. You could actually see it at work.

That is part of the reason why the topic of scatternets has produced the equivalent of a few rainforests in papers and theses, but nobody has ever come up with a workable concept, let alone a prototype. But SR assumes that It Just Works��™ so we don't need to worry about that.

It's a good point, but I have to politely disagree.

Bluetooth devices own their own wireless functionality too. You can network devices in your house all day long together (which is what a commlink does), but that doesn't give any of them access to the internet. This is the difference between LAN mentality and WAN mentality. Though, is SR terms, we're calling the LAN a PAN.

A PAN can receive signal because AROs are basically set up to broadcast in wide open "See me here" mode, but that doesn't mean they can reach out and touch some one without an MSP.

I guess my interpretation of the rules on this one will just have to be different from yours on this one.

That'd have to be a house-rule. The book is explicit that no MSP is required: "An MSP is not necessary for surf- ing or hacking, but most casual users (and many shadowrunners) find the services offered by MSPs to be useful in their day-to-day routines." (SR4A, p218).

Um...

How is this different than previous editions of SR where all the REALLY secure servers had no connection to the Matrix at all? Where you had to send in a hacker to personally interface with the server to do any hacking?



-karma

Beside the fact that you don't have to carry around 15 lbs of deck to do it? @=)

It's not, really.

Oh, and thanks to Yerameyahu for the specific page reference. I apparently missed that.

Besides the fact that this server would be connected to the Matrix while still unhackable over that connection?

Why would it need to be connected? I see no reason why that need be a fact...

Keep the Faith

The question was "How is this different than previous editions of SR where all the REALLY secure servers had no connection to the Matrix at all?" The answer must provide a difference. You come in and talk about the difference not needing to be fact.

Edit: change of tone

Edit2:

Further information is now available here.

Old situation: Being off the matrix makes you impossible to hack remotely
New situation: Being off the matrix makes you impossible to hack remotely, You can be on the matrix and be impossible to hack

The request: Difference from the Old situation
The response: You can be on the matrix and be impossible to hack

You question the necessity of (to demonstrate the difference): Server in question being connected
What you can't do without a connection: Be on the matrix

Wait... What?

Why are you ranting at me here...

You could have two scenarios... It will either be one or the other of course... Connected or not...

1. The server could be connected and secured such that the hacking attempt was ludicrous, but still possible, though unlikely without having IC and Spiders swarming all over the hacker...

2. The System is not connected to the Matrix at ALL, which would require a physical penetration...

The quote I was replying to was from Sengir, Replying to Catadmin, who was replying to Karmainferno:






I wanted to know why it WOULD (Need) BE CONNECTED AS FACT... it does not have to be connected at all... and that is the only FACT there was... could it be connected... YES, is it a FACT THAT IT MUST BE CONNECTED... NO...

Which was why I was curious why it had to be a fact... It does not have to be you know... or maybe you don't...

Really, Heath Robinson... you should probably cut down on the caffeine... I am not arguing about the difference not needing to be a fact... I was wondering why Sengir thought that it needed be fact...

Keep the Faith

KarmaInferno asked for the difference between the old situation and the new situation. That difference is "you can be connected to the matrix and still be unhackable". You asked why being connected was needed as part of the answer when being connected is the entirety of the answer.


For what it might be worth, I do apologise for the rant. I tried, after I made the post, to turn it into a response that was more informative and less provocative. Posting emotional responses is cathartic, but it does not serve to maximise the S/N ratio.

Rant aside, No offense by the way, there is no real difference between the previous editions and now... In previous editions you had systems attached to the matrix and ones that were not... the ones that were could still have been deemed relatively unhackable, just like now... the biggest difference, as Catadmin pointed out, to hacking into a remote system not connected to the matrx is that you no longer have to lug around a piece of hacking equipment that weighed in at 15 pounds (or whatever)...

I was just curious why Sengir's FACT was that it could be connected to the matrix was any different than previous editions... specifically that the System could be linked into the matirix, and still remain relatively unhackable... there really is no difference at all, as that was a standard assumption in previous editions as well... you could either be connected and relatively unhackable, or be totally unhackable in the matrix by not being hooked up...

No Big Deals either way, of course, I was just curious why he chose to make the statement is all...

Keep the Faith

Ditto to above. I have no idea what just happened, but it's *really* simple: anything can be 'unhackable', on- or offline. Anything on the Matrix is a remote hacking target target, but it can have defenses (duh); anything off the Matrix is a non-remote hacking target, and it can have other defenses. It works fine.

This.

Invest 987928491092843192 into a cutting-edge firewall? Nah, just redirect the connection and the server becomes unhackable because computer magic does not work over routers

Except it does.

Indeed, once you have hacked the routed connection, you can return to the subscribed node (that was slaved to something else) that you need, but were diverted from, in the first place...

Keep the Faith

Except with the wording in the 4A book, which is the whole point of this thread: Is this an intentional change or just a minor oversight by CGL?

No matter what it says in 4A, in Unwired it says:

Page 54, Unwired

"If for any reason a node or group
of nodes is dropped from a network, the
remaining available nodes simply route
around the gap, making the network
self-healing."

Point blank, even if you remove the nodes your being routed through, the network will make up for this and reroute you before you can say megapulse.

That is the reason they made the Matrix like it is anyway. Remember, avoid another crash, ability to isolate infected networks, sustainability if part of the network goes down...

4A is not the end all be all of Matrix rules. In fact, the damn book tells you to refer to Unwired... Good advice...

I think the question here was:

can you hack over routers, or do you need to be in "mutual signal range"

i believe HR argued that its the latter

I think that passage makes it obvious, of course you can. The paragraphs before that one explains it well. If you are in Node A and you want to access Node B (For whatever reason) then you are routed to Node B automatically, any node can act as a router. Right in the rules in Unwired.

If I am trying to hack a secured server that is offline then I need to get into "mutual signal range". I don't think that people realize that just because a node is off the Matrix that it can still be hacked. The secure node probably interacts with the nodes in the building and if not, well you gotta direct connect wired or get closer.

Remember, hackers are supposed to be mobile this edition. If the node is connected in someway to the matrix then it can be hacked from anywhere. If it is not readily available from the matrix then adjust plan accordingly.

Sounds simple to me...

Indeed. It's insane to suggest that you can't hack over routers, and I don't think the RAW even says it. You can misinterpret the rules, maybe, but it only breaks the game to do so. *shrug* Why bother?

I'm not sure how it's possible to misinterpret the statement "In order to hack a node, you must either be within mutual Signal range of the target node’s device or have an open subscription with the node through the Matrix." That doesn't seem like a statement that is open to interpretation.


Since having a subscription requires an account (hacked or otherwise), you can't hack over routers.

I guess you're right. They've deliberately written this and worded it exactly this way so that the game would be broken. That's the only rational explanation I can see.

If the target is in hidden mode, then you need to be in mutual signal range and find it. It's not accepting Matrix traffic, so you have to hack it directly.

If it's not in hidden mode, then you just need to be able to access it via the Matrix (i.e. it can't be isolated from the Matrix, in a static zone, etc.) It is accepting Matrix traffic, so you can attempt to hack it via any node it can access. Routers, as you put it.

Even in hidden mode, the node *could* certainly be accepting connections from a whitelist. You just have to find one of *those* to get in.
You're right, of course, that it could be hidden and also connected to nothing else. If it has a Signal, that's 'direct radio connection' time.
It's only when a node is fully *off* the Matrix (no Signal radio at all, 'intranet' LAN only) that you absolutely have to use a (local) wired connection.

Heath, I just can't see willfully assuming the rules are intended to be stupid, when they work just fine if you let them.

You're right, it could be accepting certain connections. Perhaps you'd need to find its commlink code first, before being able to Matrix-hack a hidden connection.

Of course, that's what the Devs do all the time

It's possible to 'misinterpret' the statement by taking the contradiction you are astutely capable of identifying and then partially invalidating the RAW to make it work, which it seems you are dogmatically incapable of doing.

The hack-on-the-fly action includes logging on, but if you already have a subscription then you are already logged on so it logically follows that the hotf passage implies you do not have a subscription prior to attempting the hack.

This is contradictory to the sentence you quote so one of them must give way. You seem hell-bent on keeping the text that makes remote hacking impossible whilst there are many people here trying to tell you you'll have a much more enjoyable game if you side with the text that doesn't.

This discussion reminds me of the time a player of mine(new to shadowrun) went to hack into an old-style system....
and was like "What does this red 20 sided polyhedron with two loops around it mean, anyway?" Yeah...
that was a FUN game! *WEG*

Could you tidy up your first sentence? You say that is possible to misinterpret the statement by doing A. You then go on to say that I am "dogmatically incapable" of doing A. Apparently this means I am misinterpreting the sentence.


There's nothing in the text of Log On or in the Subscription rules to indicate that you can't Log On to the same node multiple times. Your contradiction doesn't exist.


Do you seriously think that I would actually use the very literal interpretations that I discuss on this forum in a real game? I drink the coolaid when I want to play. On Dumpshock, however, I have a committment to the RAWest of the RAW. To do otherwise makes rules discussions about as useful as discussions of the hallucinations we had last time we dropped acid. That is, pointless.

Well, I actually used inverted commas to denote that your original use of "misinterpret" (those are quotation marks which are different*) was not apt. Then I said that you seemed incapable of "partially invalidating the RAW" which admittedly isn't the clearest of expressions but I felt it was clear enough. What I meant by that was that you haven't been exhibiting any wilful ability to work around the problem.


I do believe there is more than one mention between SR4A and Unwired concerning the same access ID appearing on the same node simultaneously and that this is generally, if not universally, refused.


Ah, there it is. You weren't looking to improve anyone's gaming experience, strengthen the integrity of the concept of the Sixth World, fix something that was broken or anything like that. You just wanted to show how clever you are in identifying an issue. That's fine, I do it too sometimes (mostly in RL) and I've suspected the same motivation from others in numerous other posts, but it doesn't really achieve anything does it? I said very early on that it was an impressive observation, but if you weren't bringing it up to prevent others from thinking that was how the game is best played then it just looks like you're trying to persuade everyone else that they shouldn't be putting in the fixes that you only now admit to putting into your own game.

I also disagree strongly (no, really?!) that there is no point in discussing rules beyond RAW – house rules, optional rules, tweaking, RAI, custom powers/gear/spirits/etc. and more all have a welcome place here IMO as well as deducing fluff from crunch and vice versa. Indeed generally I find these things far more useful and interesting than "RAW says X so that's that". Only the lazy among us need the rules read out for them and none of them asked about this.

Yes I did seriously think you were boycotting the remote hacking aspect in your home game - you implied it as early as the OP and have given no indication (that I've seen) to the contrary. Why have you not mentioned how it goes in your game? You've been fighting someone else's corner but that someone else doesn't actually exist because it's an unprofitable point of view as you've just agreed.

* Believe it or not that wasn't intended to patronise, but some people do have some funny ideas/blind spots/ignorances when it comes to grammar these days.