Yes, but the fact that Pilots exist and *themselves* have trouble interpreting commands ('go kill that there') overwhelmingly implies that something lacking a Pilot shouldn't be able to do what a Pilot does.

It certainly depends on the command in question, but I'm saying it's better to err on the side of 'less spoofable' for commlinks. It just seems more fair. After all, Issue Command is a 'tweet-sized list' at max (often, more than you need), and Spoof Command is "Each Spoof Command action applies only to a single command; multiple commands require multiple Spoof Command attempts."

You seem to be under the impression that there is a "master account." I'm not sure that is a thing. It's not something I can find in either the BBB or Unwired. There are only 4 types of accounts. Public, user, security and admin. If the device is slaved, then it's master has admin access and it won't receive wireless commands from other users. The slaving of it takes up a subscription slot, but that is by no means a "master account."
Therefore giving the command "Change Master Account" can't be done because there is no such thing.

The three things you are asking it to do aren't "painfully simple." To suggest that a device would perform multiple actions after one command is like suggesting that performing the action "Download all files with X." That is also something you can't do. You first have to find the files with Browse. Then you have to Decrypt them, then you have to download them.
Similarly you can't give the command "Kick off all users that aren't me." or anything like that because that is not a Matrix action. The actions you can take are represented by the Matrix rules.

Also, a System can't perform actions, it can only do things it is told to do. A Pilot program can be told "Go shoot that guy." and can interpret that info, usually after a Pilot x 2 + Adaptablility + Fuzzy Logic roll. A System has no such roll. It doesn't have a dog brain like a Pilot program. Moreover, it has no IPs, so it's can't take the multiple actions you are suggesting it do.
Even if it could interpret your Command, it would first have too delete it's former enslavement on it's first action, then add your Access ID to it's data banks of acceptable users on it's next action, then slave itself to your commlink on it's third action. Thus you still couldn't do this in one action as you suggested.
But, as Systems don't have actions, this is something the Spoofer has to do. A Pilot program might be able to do this if it had the necessary programs like Edit, but not a commlink.

As I said, this is something that can be done, but it can't be done in one command or one action. Things are only truly un-hackable if you start creating your own Matrix actions and ignore the rules system set in place to interpret such complex systems as the 2070 Matrix.

I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by master account. I mean an Access ID admin account which is automatically set to whoever the master happens to be.

And to suggest that a device can't perform multiple actions is ludicrous. As I explained, you only have to hit one button to install a program, despite the fact that the installation process requires (among other things): to create multiple folders, to extract files, to install files in multiple locations, to add itself to the program registry, to make a desktop shortcut, to make a start menu shortcut, possibly add itself to the 'run on startup' list. This is exactly comparable to whatever steps might be required to slave a device. Both require a single command. "Install program X" or "Make this device a slave to device X". If you want to claim that changing the master of a slaved device requires more than a single command, then you need to realize that everything you do in the matrix would require dozens or hundreds of commands.

Also, I'm fairly sure there is a 'disconnect all users' action specifically spelled out in the matrix rules, though I could be wrong. Yep, there it is, p223 BBB. But that is entirely beside the point. You also don't need to decrypt a file before you download it, you just need to decrypt it before you can do much of anything with it.



From the description, I figure this is more or less exactly how slaving works, so all you need to do is change what the master access ID is. Since you're the one complaining about actions not in the book, I'd like you to find where it says "A master requires an admin account" as opposed to "A master has admin access".

Also keep in mind that when I say "send the command 'change master to X'" I don't mean that is literally what you send. I mean you send whatever the code equivalent of getting that done would be, there is no need for the commlink to interpret anything.

Again, this isn't something I see anywhere. I don't think this is a thing in Shadowrun.
It would be counter intuitive to even have such a thing. You need Admin Access to slave a node, therefore you just give it a subscription slot. Why would you make a script that would give admin access and a master subscription to another user? If such a line of code existed, and I can't find anywhere that it does, why wouldn't you delete it?


Except you aren't talking about obscure Matrix concepts, you are talking about specific Matrix actions that must run in real time with the rest of combat. Load Program can be done in one Matrix action and all the addition computer stuff is presumed to occur within that action. Changing and deleting subscriptions are very specific Matrix actions, all of which take a Complex action. Specifically they are Edit actions. One cannot perform more than one Complex action per Initiative pass. These require multiple Commands.


If you are referring to Terminate Connection, this can only be done against one person at a time and only if they don't have a legit account. That is it's limitation and why "dissconnect all users that aren't me" isn't a Command you can give. It is too broad and doesn't take into account all the things happening in the Matrix that the rules are there to interpret.
If you are referring to System Reset, then that takes more than 1 IP and does far more than dissconnect all users.
In the Decrypting scenario, one is presuming the files are Encrypted. You still need to find them first, which takes multiple Matrix actions.

Unwired p. 53
"Admin privileges empower individuals to...
assign access levels to accounts, and assign privileges to account levels."

p. 98
"To add, alter, or delete an account, you would almost certainly
need to spoof a command from someone with admin privileges."

I think adding a subscription falls under the heading of altering an account and creating a master/slave connection certainly falls under the heading of assigning access levels.



I understand what you are wanting to do, but you can't do it in one command. You are giving the system multiple conflicting orders with that order. Much like the command "Download all files about X" or "Give all icons that aren't me User Access only" or any other million things you can imagine.
It's just like combat. You can say "I toss the guy shooting at me into the other guy shooting at me" and that is something you can do, but first you have to roll to grab the guy, then roll to throw him then roll to hit the second guy.
These are doable things, but you have to follow the rules in order.

The FAQs try to throw out the baby with the bath water and say you can't Spoof nodes, but not only does this contradict Unwired, it's more limiting than I think most people want to make it. In order not to throw off game balance, you have to use the Matrix rules as they stand.

In your code example, you make it clear that the system will only accept input from the master.

If I understand your point, you are saying that you can send a single command that will edit the "slave.ini" to replace the previous access ID with your access ID. Which of the commands listed in the Shadowrun rules will do that?
It seems to me you still would have to get yourself in somehow before you could edit that file. As in, you would have to spoff a command to un-slave. Then, hack the system to give yourself an admin account, then slave it to yourself.

Your idea only works if that file were a text based .ini that you could use your one command to copy on to the system (which I also don't think would work, but let's not worry about that right now). As apposed to an encrypted hex file that you would need to steal, decrypt, and pick through line by line til you found the line, in hex, that contains the Access ID. Edit that line. Re-encrypt using the same software and key, then copy the file back to the target, and telling it to over-write the origonal. Right?

Now, even if the file is an unencrypted ASCII .ini file, how do you, with one spoofed command, edit it?

Coding in Shadowrun isn't text based. It's too complex. It's metaphor based.

You're extrapolating a ton of stuff. Read through the book, there is no action at all, of any kind, that causes a device to become the slave to another device. There are no listed requirements for a device to be a slave to another device. Any requirement or action you come up with is just as much 'not a thing in shadowrun' as my idea that you can spoof 'change master to X'. I say again that if you'd like to show me where it says the requirements of making a device a slave, or the actions required to do so, I'd love to see it. Because until then, by your own arguments, making a slave is in fact impossible because it isn't listed as an action. Sure, it says that you can make a device a slave, but it never says how, and since it doesn't say how, it isn't an action in shadowrun, just like changing the master isn't an action.



No, it is pulling the variable of the master_access_ID, which is something that you would generally be able to easily change with a single command. There is no need to edit any kind of .ini file any more than there is a need to edit a .ini file to do anything at all on a computer. As I've said a dozen times before, you just have to send the command that changes the master's access ID to whatever you want it to be.

Let me say it this way:
Somehow it is possible to make a device a slave to another device. We don't know the exact processes involved in this, just like we don't know the exact processes involved in running a program or installing a program. We do however know that it is possible. And just like installing a program, it is likely done (since everything is geared towards user friendliness) in a fairly quick format that requires as little input from the user as possible, just like installing a program is done by double clicking the .exe file and hitting yes a few times. Thus there is no reason that you shouldn't be able to send a single spoofed command to run that same setup process to change the master to something else, just like you should be able to send a single spoofed command to install a program.

PG 59 Unwired. That's the action, slaving the node.

Don't ask me where Bearclaw (or anyone else) is getting his idea that the slave action can't be spoofed. I don't get it either. As far as I'm concerned the easiest thing to do if that happens to one of your devices is physically turn the device off.

From a programmer standpoint, I need to be able to move slave nodes to other nodes and it makes life a LOT easier if the master node can do that. Now if someone wants to write on their character sheet that the only way to deslave a node is (for example) to reboot it, sure. However I've found people tend to regret excessive security measures. Make a device secure enough and eventually it will lock you out. That's why most security isn't secure. No one puts up with being locked out of their car or home and discovering a locksmith can't unlock it in under a minute. They want security that a locksmith can bypass but criminals can't. For fun, sell people those lug nuts that can't be removed except by the unique tool that (I guarantee you) they'll be unable to find when they have a flat tire. Oh man, those people get mad...

Right, but my point is that it is something you can do, not an action. It isn't a simple action, isn't a free action, isn't complex or extended. It doesn't list what if any kind of roll is required to do so, or what kind of access is required to make it happen on a device. All it says is that slaving a device is possible, which by all rights means that changing the master of a slaved device should also be possible, but similarly lists no exact actions, conditions, or requirement for doing so.

So, Fortinbras' constant argument that changing the master isn't an action spelled out in the book applies equally to making anything a slave in the first place. It also means that his insistence that being a master requires an access id admin account equally untrue, as that is also not listed as a requirement. It also means that any steps he lists as being required to change the master are entirely of his own fabrication.

I didn't read everything yet, but *any* change on a device should be assumed to be at minimum a Change Linked Device Mode (Free action), or something like it. Obviously.

It's pretty reasonable to assume that slaving requires an admin account, though. The alternative is just incredibly bad computer security, and would instantly be changed if it were the case.

Take a deep breath.

It's Shadowrun.

If you do find an exact action, condition, or requirement in the rules, treasure it, especially if you look and you can't find a conflicting action, condition, or requirement somewhere else in the rules.

Eyeball it. Wing it. Roll with it. It's not neurosurgery. It's a role playing game in a world that fractally doesn't make sense*.



*anything that doesn't make sense is supported by other things that also turn out not to make sense which are supported by other things that....

Slaving requires a Subscription.(Unwired p.55)
A slave may only be subscribed to one master(same)
Subscribing to a node is a Complex action(SR4a p.224 & 231)
Unsubscribing to a node is a Simple Action action(SR4a p. 229)
When one subscribes to a node, one does so at a particual access level, from public to admin(SR4a p. 225)
To slave a node requires Admin Access(Unwired p. 53 & 98)

One must terminate the ongoing subscription by spoofing that simple action. Then one must create or hack a subscription at Admin access, at least one complex action. Then one must make that subscription slaved. This is most likely a Spoof Command Complex action if one is still spoofing or a Change Linked Device Free Action if you are hacked in.
Even if you sent this as a script for the System to execute, it couldn't be done in one turn.

Just because you can't find the rule, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Why? Clustering allows you to run a whole bunch of IC. My combat medic mage has 13 independent pieces of 'ware. If they were all alphaware, then I could run 26 rating 4 programs on the resulting Node. That would be the following:

1. Agent (Rating 4) with Adaptability (Rating 3), Cascading (Rating 3), & Expert Defense (Rating 3)
2. Attack (Rating 4)
3. Armor (Rating 4)
4. Blackout (Rating 4) or Medic (Rating 4) for the Medic Agent

This would be multiplied 5 times (4 Attackers and 1 Medic), so when your NPC hacker comes in he gets a VERY rude surprise. This also doesn't take into account what IC is running on my 'Link...

That all seems pretty clear, Fortinbras.

Because doing it with *cyberware* is pure evil, KCKitsune. Hehe. Clustering *real* nodes in order to run more IC is fine (although you could also just run them on those nodes and link in, which is the usual method with spiders).

Yes, but you'd scream bloody murder if the corps did that by comparison. Every single player I have had use clustering on me at a con that i've gotten time to reverse the roles has flipped their lid.

Clustering was obviously written by someone with only a passing understanding of computers or even electronics in general. This notion that there is all this extra CPU cycles on your ware or your toaster to make it comparable to a dedidicated computer device is patently rediculous. It's like someonje read about seti at home and suddenly thought it was a viable project in microcosm. It's not clever it's just bad rules.

So wait... You're saying players don't want to be turned to paste by their own ideas? Then why do they keep coming up with such nasty stuff?

I might even give a little bit of credit if it was something that was obscure or difficult, but nope, it's "slap a bunch of ware together, get infinite response". Idiocy. Ok i'm better now.

Thank you.

I ruled that if you are clustering cyberware, then that cyberwaer now "plays an important part in the adventure" not "a passing role" and is no longer subject to being a simple device rating. I just use the sample peripheral devices from Unwired as a base to give it a full compliment of Matrix stats. Same System, lowered Response, like a credstick.
This way no one is running around with single cybereyes in their pockets with Responses of 6.
Does that seem fair or Draconic?

I understand that, I wasn't directing those comments at you, I was directing them at Fortinbras as he was the one saying that if something wasn't an explicit action it couldn't be done.


Read again. It says that the slave is linked to the master, it does not say that a subscription, active or otherwise, is required.
Also not stated, it says that it doesn't accept any connections that aren't from the master. Presumably if there was more than one master, it would accept connections from more than one master.
Irrelevant, as a subscription is not required.

p53 makes no mention of slaving, and page 98 indicates that you need security access, not admin access, to slave a node to something, but does not say that the ID that you are slaving it to requires any sort of account at all. It says quite plainly that you can use a riggers account (Presumably security since the section is talking about what different levels of accounts can do, and the rigger account portion is between the basic and admin descriptions) to slave that drone to your commlink. There is no mention of 'slave it to your commlink after booting off the rigger and hacking yourself an admin account'. No, it says that by spoofing a security access ID you can slave the device to your commlink, period. No other requirements.

So, thank you for providing that page reference that I'd missed to prove my point.

Seems fair to me

Although system can't be higher than response as I recall, so that would make a high system/low response device fairly pointless. Unless maybe it is optimized... can you optimize system?

From pg. 55 Unwired

It can, for peripheral devices. So it'll be okay right up until you cluster.

Slaving should obviously require a subscription. If it's true that the book says it doesn't (or, perhaps, doesn't say it *does*), then it's just one more erroneous Broken Rule to ignore.

The fact that it's *the* master seems pretty clear; one master.

Don't you need a subscription to execute ANY commands on a node?

You read again. It's the big box in the middle of the page under "Actions Needing Subscription."

You said it yourself "the master" not "a master." That means one and only one master.

p. 53 makes note of what admin access can do and what security access can't do.
p. 93 says to in order to add, alter or delete accounts(altering being the key one as you must alter it to give it a subscription to a separate node) you need admin access. Nothing is mentioned about security access.

I'll ignore that the page is referencing drones and not commlinks, and simply say that the text states it can be done. I've never claimed it can't be done. It simply can't be done with a single action.

As much fun as it would be to simply say "I do this." you run into the old Cowboys & Indians problems of having the other guy say "you missed me."
That is why the rules are there. To regulate actions accordingly. They have to be followed, else Matrix actions become a series of escalating arguments between people who know computers really well while the rest of us who don't simply throw that aspect out of the game.
Then Hacking becomes Decking. And Rule #1 is the decker always dies.

Why? Device A only accepts connections and commands from Device B, why does either device need an active subscription for this to happen? That's like saying a password is only needed if someone else is already logged onto an account.


And I'll say for the millionth time that nowhere does it say that slaving requires an account of any kind. I'll also repeat myself that it says very clearly that a rigger's grade account access via spoofing (security by virtues already explained) can slave a device. You continue to fail utterly to provide a single line from the entire book that says that slaving a device takes more than one action, or requires any kind of account.

I've provided evidence directly from the book that says: Security access is good enough to slave a device (drone is the specific example, but a drone is simply a type of device as far as the matrix is concerned). Since security level access can't add/remove/adjust accounts (as you've gone through great pains to point out), this directly indicates that an account is not required for master/slave relationship. You've failed to show where a subscription is required for the master/slave relationship. I'll concede that a subscription is required to do much of anything besides send single commands, but it isn't necessarily required for the relationship to exist.

And as much fun as it is to simply say "This is totally required even though there is no evidence for it book, and evidence to the contrary" you run into the old Lack of Evidence problem. That is why the rules are there. To regulate actions accordingly. They have to be followed, else Matrix actions become a series of escalating arguments between people who know computers really well while the rest of you who don't simply throw that aspect out of the game.
Then Hacking becomes Decking. And Rule #1 is the decker always dies.

Um, seriously. It's there in black and white on p55: slaving requires a subscription. As we all know it should, anyway. It literally could not be clearer.

Geez x.x kept missing that box. Still don't know why A couldn't be a slave to B even though they aren't connected, as it seems somewhat silly that as soon as B turns off or loses wireless, A suddenly decides to accept connections from anyone. So really there is a 4th method to getting into a slaved device, and that is to disrupt the connection between master and slave, via a jammer perhaps.

AFAIK, you can probably 'program' arbitrary conditions into a node (like an Access ID whitelist). Half of slaving is forwarding connections; between that and having admin control from the master, that explains the subscription.

In ideal-ville, the rules are supposed to be abstract, simplified, and balanced, compared to reality. If you want to make changes (reality-based or otherwise), do go for it.

Ghost, wouldn't you at least need to find the Access ID of the comm you want to slave? I follow you on saying you don't need an admin account to slave, that security will do just fine, but if there are say, 3 Access IDs that are slaved to one master commlink, I'd think you would either need to perform three actions to slave each of them to a different Access ID or take two actions to do one (that being an analyze to get the one Access ID and a second to reslave it).

Granted, I think by spoofing, you could simply get in the master commlink as a user account and then just start spoofing commands to the slaves, instead of worrying about getting some sort of real control over the hacker's comm.

Oh yes, if you want to change over multiple slaves, that is going to take multiple actions. And yes, you would need to find the slave you want to change ownership of. I've been operating under the assumption that you know the slave already, and are looking at how to get into it, as opposed to looking at the master and wanting to take its (unknown) slaves.

I think the only way you'd know the slave already is if you had its Access ID before it was actually slaved. Since any traffic directed at the slave goes straight to the master, I don't see how you could even do a Matrix Perception on a slave as its effectively invisible. Even if you knew its physical location, you couldn't get an Access ID wirelessly, right?

I'm just thinking that going into all of this, like in a combat or whatever, you won't know the Access ID of the slave, so you do have to get in the master first. That is kind of the point of slaving comms to the hacker for security. The slave turns invisible and the master has to be hacked first, which should be harder to do...

You could get the accessID with a EW+Sniff test to pick up the packets, and then a decrypt to decrypt the packets.

Sure you could, that is basically the purpose of the scan program. How else would you ever connect to anything?

Ghost, the way I am reading it is all traffic (which should include scanning) would be forwarded to the master to handle. So your scan on a slaved commlink would go to the master. Again, this is only for slaved commlinks, not anything in general. Slaving a commlink provides an extra level of protection.

sabs, that makes sense. You could pick up the packets. And if you did so before engaging in combat or other interaction, you'd have less actions to worry about. If not, well, you've got some extra steps to perform to get the Access ID, which may actually be quicker to get into the master comm and not putz around with the slaved commlink at all externally.

You could still get the access ID from scanning, just like you can still get it from scanning a hidden node.

Wouldn't the slave have to respond to the scan? That seems like a contradiction to forwarding all traffic and control to the master. I don't think a slaved node is the same thing as a hidden node. The way I read it, a slaved node, for all intents as purposes, turns into the master node, so that's the only node you are able to interact with wirelessly. Again, I thought security was the whole purpose of slaving, making you have to go through the master node (which is assumed to be better secured than any of the slaves) for everything.

I agree, I get the entire 'chokepoint' vibe from slaving devices. You have to go through the chokepoint to reach anything else. You can spoof commands to slaves, but only from the master node.

Of course, I have one read-through of the matrix stuff in SR4 under my belt, so I am still pretty much helplessly confused.

Yes, and you do have to go through the master node. I don't know how scanning works, but my guess is that it takes the wireless signal that a device puts out (even the slaved device puts out signals to the master to maintain the required subscription) and pulls the access ID from that. It's kinda like a specialized form of intercept traffic. At least that's how I think of it. However it works though, scanning makes no mention of the device being searched for needing to accept connections or anything of the like, and slaving makes no mention that it prevents the device being scanned.

You cannot spoof a Slave unless you have access to the Master Node. You cannot find an Access ID for a Slaved Node, because you do not detect the slaved Node, you detect the master. Etc...

Here is the quote for Slaving and accessing Slaved Nodes...



You only have three choices for deeling with a Slaved Node.

1. Hack it Physically through a WIRED CONECTION (Or through its own hardware)...
2. Hack the Master Node to gain control of it, and thus any Slaved Nodes.
3. Spoof the AID of the Master Node, and THEN Spoof commands to the Slave.

That is it... Nothing else will work.

I don't see how spoofing the access ID of the master node = "have access to the Master Node".
A Trace User test will provide the access ID. A Capture Wireless Signal Test will allow you to do a Trace User.

No one was disputing any of that, I don't see why you quoted it. Though actually, there is a 4th method. You can break the connection between master and slave (Via jamming for instance), which would cause the slave to no long be slaved, as being slaved requires an active subscription, and thus make it hackable via normal means at least until a connection is reestablished (after which it isn't stated if the slave/master relationship starts up again automatically or needs to be manually reinstated). Even so, I don't know why you quoted ways to break into a slave when we were talking about obtaining an Access ID which doesn't require a connection to the node in question, or a connection of any kind.

If you can spoof access to the Master node, then you can also spoof access to the Slaved Nodes, but it is a two step process. Don't try to relate it to anything in real life, that way lies madness...

No it wont, it will supply the AID of the MASTER NODE. Unless, of course, you are using the Slaved Node to communicate Wirelessly. Why exactly would you do that?

You would do that because it is required in order to have a subscription with the master node which is required for the master/slave relationship.

And no, you spoof the access ID of the master node so that you can give commands to the slave. You don't 'spoof access to the master node'. You may be mixing up what spoof is/does. If you spoof the access ID of the master node, you are basically pretending to be the master node. You don't have to get any actual access to the master node, or indeed interact with the master node any more than is required to obtain its access ID.

But if both nodes are communicating wirelessly, aren't both their AIDs being sent through the air?
And if they are, can't you capture the wireless signal of both?
(Not being Socratic. Honestly asking.)

I am not mixing up my rules here. Read the Rules I quoted... and I quote, again...



Pretty evident there, don't you think?
Once you have SPOOFED the AID of the Master Node, You still have to SPOOF the commands to the Slave, uisng that Spoofed Master Node AID.

Why is that so difficult to understand. You are NOT the Master Node in that Case. You are pretending to be the Master Node, and then Pretending to Give appropriate commands to the Slaved Node.

Yeah, for spoofing, you just need to know the Access ID of the Master and the Node, then you can "pretend" and send all the commands you want. But, you do need to get both of those Access IDs to make it work, so its multiple steps again.

It is not so much that you need 2 AID's. It is that you need to convince the Slaved Node that you are indeed who you say you are, which is a Spoof Command. You only need the AID of the Master node.

Hmm, that's weird, I assumed that spoofing a command included making it look like it was coming from the correct access ID. Otherwise why wouldn't you spoof your access ID to look like the master and then just use normal commands instead of spoofs? I mean if you use spoof to look like the master, why do you also need to use spoof to make commands look like they came from the master? Hang on, let me read up on what exactly spoof does to get a clearer picture.

Yeah,
I think the problem here is that spoof is a term, as well as a program. You spoof the master as part of the action of sending a spoofed command. It only requires one action to do so (not counting actions required to obtain the access ID of the master in the first place).

The Problem is that you need to Spoof the Master Node for the Access to be able to send additional commands down the pipe. And, because you are NOT the Master Node, You need to Spoof any commands (using the Master' Node's AID) to the Slaved Node. It is often just easier to Hack the Master node and then you have access without needing to Spoof. But Spoofing does not usually carry the risk of actually hacking the Master Node (You are pretending to be a legitimate User from the "Outside" because you have a Valid AID).