Can you cite chapter and verse? That's not something I'd heard before, either. [In fact, SR4a explicitly says, "An MSP is not necessary for surfing
or hacking," on page 218, and Unwired p42 says, "Despite what the ads say, you don’t really need an MSP to get onto the Matrix, your commlink has all the hook-up you need."] My impression is that MSPs aren't for nodes, they're for users.

It's in Unwired. There's a whole chapter on it that basically says you need an MSP, but it's assumed to be part of the Lifestyle cost. Most Shadowrunners just use black MSPs.
Just broadcasting a Signal doesn't immediately hook a thing up to the Matrix. It needs to be subscribed and all that jazz.
EDIT: All I'm saying is that if you don't want to connect your wireless device to the Matrix, you don't have to. And, if you don't, then if someone wants to hack it, they need to be within mutual signal range so the devices can talk to each other. As there are plenty of places that don't have Matrix access, it makes playing a remote hacker less than utilitarian unless the GM is willing to accommodate them.

Just about everywhere runners are going to go is going to be cut off from the Matrix. From the Cascade Mountains to a corp basement, folks don't leave their info just open to the public. If they did, there would be no need for Shadowrunners. Hackers could just sit at home and do all the running from there.
This is why most GMs provide many sources of counter hacking and Signal jamming and degradation. It one of the main reasons Missions has so many air-locked Faradays. There needs to be some reason the Johnson didn't just have his company spyder waltz into whatever system and take it's paydata. There also needs to be a way to protect pay data from wireless intruders.

If you take the hacker away from the team, he's not really part of the team. It's also a giant middle finger to the rest of the team who are putting their butts on the line for the run while the hacker sits safely at home. For the players, it means that in the event of TPK, one player gets to walk away with his character intact, laughing about how stupid everyone was. This in my experience, is the main reason people want to play full immersion hackers in the first place. They want an invincible character.
To allow this in your world is bad game design. To allow such a character is bad GMing. To play such a character is power gaming of the worst sort.

Yes. It's as if they would need an entire team of people to get at any truly valuable data. A team that worked outside the system; in the shadows.
They'd have to be fast, though, to avoid the Man. They'd have to run. In the shadows.

I'm not trying to defend the concept per se, I get the arguments and it was only really intended as a character gen. experiment rather than a fully fledged character...but...

Isn't a hacker putting their brain on the line every time they go up against anything remotely secure? Of the three 'worlds' this is the one place when a character is (usually) entirely on their own against the opposition...even with a high stealth program isn't it only a matter of time before their nefarious doings are spotted?!?

Just a thought. Prospero is going to be an NPC in an upcoming scene in the 2072 pbp so we'll see how the other characters deal with him

Well, Peg was able to help Argent despite being a Paraplegic in a clinic somewhere in the world for the longest time. She ran matrix overwatch and got him local talent for the stuff not on the public Matrix.

GM: "What are you guys playing?"

P1: "I'm going to be a badass ex-military guy who cut his arms off for Cyberarms of Awesome"

P2: "I'm going to be a badass street samurai with jacked reflexes."

P3: "I'm going to be a badass Eagle shaman with a weapon focus."

GM: "Fuck it, we'll have an NPC hacker again. She'll be a paraplegic who does remote hacking so she doesn't take up screentime."

If the hacker is hot simming (or is a TM) they put their brains on the line (theoretically).

Also, P1 in the above game needs to call his character Bevin. Spot on Bevin!

As it should be until the hacking rules make sense.

Heh... They make sense to me. The key is to NOT try and equate the real world with it...

Actually, he was a Decker as well.

Yeah, I know there's a lot about MSPs in Unwired. That's not really what I'm asking. I'm asking where it says a node needs an MSP to connect to the Matrix.


How does that information ever get used, then? How do the people working in the target facilities get information to them? How is it practical for important work to be done without the benefits that come with Matrix access? To put it in today's terms, do you think most targets of industrial espionage don't have internet access? Of course they have internet access: they just have internet security to block unapproved access. The job of a hacker is to get in anyway. None of this is any different, as I see it, in Shadowrun.


Sometimes. There are a variety of circumstances in which a hacker might be required to go into a given facility - unidirectional datalines, isolated systems with only physical access, even datalines that physically disconnect according to some algorithm - but they're rare, because they're all impractical for the user as well as for the opposition.


But...wait. Why would air-locked Faradays be required if the hacker has to be within direct mutual Signal range of the device to be hacked, anyway? If there's already a rule requiring direct mutual Signal range, why would anyone - in Missions or elsewhere - have Faraday cages at all?

Hell, all you'd have to do to make a node nigh-unhackable would be to only give it a Signal 0 transceiver, and then just set it within 3 meters of your big transmitter; you'd get all the range you could require, but hackers would have to get within 3 meters to hack the node.


I've worked with a number of teams who are physically in disparate locations, and I've still felt those persons were a part of the team.


Sammy: Yeah, that was some pretty risky sitting you did there.
Hacker: That's right, of course, 'cause they wouldn't arrest me if we got caught, I'm just the hacker. I can always say I was running the Matrix by accident.


Sorry, but my experiences don't match yours. I'm currently playing a stay-at-home hacker/rigger, and I'm playing him because I find the idea of a paraplegic who extends the range of his physical capability through telepresence fascinating. In the future, more and more people who currently find their capabilities or movements restricted will have an increasing array of options; for many, prosthetics will provide a comparatively simple - if certainly not painless - route to increased mobility, but for some [such as those suffering from ALS and similar ailments, such as my character] prosthetics won't be of any help. For them, particularly for those who have been active and who have suffered from a long descent into infirmity, and who have lost much of their existing social network, a telepresent life - in MMORPGs, in Matrix equivalents of message forums, and, for the hobbyist with an interest in robotics, in the real world, with the aid of drones - will be an increasing temptation, and will come with benefits and drawbacks. I'm interested in exploring the mindset and possibilities of such a person.

Allowing this in your game is good game design, as I would define "good." A game that [i]doesn't allow this is a game I'm not personally interested in playing, although I would stop short of saying it's "bad," because different games are designed to do different things, and different people will enjoy them for different reasons. Allowing such a character is not considered, at our table, bad GMing, unless you allowed it for the wrong reasons, or allowed the player to abuse it, or dealt with it in some lame fashion that wasn't compelling. Playing such a character would similarly come without prejudice: I think most people at our table find the idea interesting, and are looking forward to seeing how it plays out. I'm pretty sure no one has thought, "Why, that 3278, trying to make his character easy and invincible by putting him in a wheelchair and making him almost incapable of independent movement. What a power-gamer!"


Uh, yes, indeed. I see what you did there. Except Shadowrun has a long history of telepresent hackers and deckers, and its rules reflect that. It's interesting that you interpret those rules in another way, but I don't see how your interpretation fits with what you've said about adventure design in Shadowrun; it certainly doesn't fit with my own interpretation, but until we're at the same table, I don't see how anything could possibly matter less.

"He had a gun to my head, officer! I had no other choice! I'm just an innocent, annoying, but completely legal Spam Writer."

"OK, boyo, ye can go."

"Ah, good."

"Right after we alert the news crews outside that you're an innocent, but completely legal Spam Writer."

"... ... Can I get a cell with a view?"

Who?
There have been some Oracles in novels, yes, but who are these telehackers? Everyone on Jackpoint, from Netcat to Clockwork to Slamm-O talk about going on actual runs. The asides in the books give examples of them doing so. If remote hacking were all that common why wouldn't the world's best hackers do so?
Even the quintessential telehacker, Icarus from the first Virtual Realities, needed a Shadowteam to extract him.
Almost all Shadowrun stories and adventures have revolved around the sammy/mage/decker triumvirate. The man, the magic and the machine.
Are you saying this isn't the way Shadowrun works? That every Shadowrun adventure, story and trope is wrong?
That the way Shadowrun works is some guy with a satellite in his basement can hack everything in the world and there is literally nothing anyone can do to prevent that signal?

The argument for being able to play a remote hacker is the same argument for being able to play a Great Dragon and it's not fooling anyone.

Before SR4, it was the norm.

Actually I think in general the "norm" was NPC Deckers as desking took WAY too long to complete to be able to have a PC decker. At least that's how it usually went at my tables. When we did have a decker with us (NPC or PC) the decking run was run the day before the game so that when the time came the non-deckers would "guard" the decker for the 60 or so seconds it took him to play out the three hours of matrix play from the day before then the GM would announce the results.

When we did have a decker he usually went with us, only rarely was he not physically present unless all he was doing was leg-work for the team.

Just my experiances, YMMV.

-D

You don´t need an MSP to connect to the matrix. Having one will be very handy for those times your primary commlink is NOT connected to the matrix, and for receiving messages while running around with a spoofed access ID. In other words: very useful and almost mandatory, yes.

Hooking up to the matrix is done via the access ID of a wireless-enabled device. You do not need a commcode for that. Mutual signal range can be established via the automatic routing function of all active nodes. Network segregation requires tricks like WiFi-inhibiting paint.

See: Unwired pg. 54-55 on Routing, pg. 53 on Commcodes.

Because of the countermeasures you've been pointing out, the airlocked Faraday cages and so on. Again, why would these countermeasures be necessary, if someone has to be within ten feet of a node in order to hack it? [Since you can always make a node Signal 0 and just set it next to one with a higher Signal.] That's one of several questions I asked previously to which you've offered no response; you don't have to say anything to us, but you might consider privately to yourself that if you don't have answers to these questions, it's possibly because the way you're running the Matrix doesn't make logical sense within the structure of the game content.


...he needed a team to physically remove him. He didn't need a team to hack remotely.


That's most definitely not true. Several people have given several examples of how to isolate systems usefully, thus forcing the hacker to come with the team, or at least forcing clever workarounds to get Signal to someplace. Please don't create false versions of my arguments which have been distorted to as to make them easier to defeat. This isn't a fight, or a debate, or anything you need to invest pride in, so this kind of straw man is just inappropriate and unnecessary.


Yeah, I don't really know what you mean by this, but I can tell you that many, many Shadowrun groups don't require direct Signal range to hack a node, and it's not disrupting their games as much as a Great Dragon would. It's cool that running it this way works at your table, and it might even be exactly how the rules were intended, but it doesn't make logical sense in the context of the rest of the game system, and it relies on an obscure interpretation of a single passage, which you would expect to see reflected elsewhere in the system, but don't.

Somehow I missed the post that compared playing a remote hacker/decker to playing a Great Dragon. Heh. Look I'd agree that all too often hacker's present some annoying challenges to a group-but yeah sorry I can't agree with that comparison.

There's a difference between being in mutual Signal range and having a normal matrix connection.


But yeah, you totally want your signal to be 0 and just have a powerful broadcaster right next to it if you don't want to be hacked. If the writer ever thought about the implication of all of this, I would guess they did it to make sure hackers did runs on site.

You might be able to run a persona on a commlink, give it to a buddy, and then hack from there. You'll want ECCM to deal with jammers, but that isn't that bad. Then you control the commlink via datajack or trodes over a normal matrix encrypted channel. I could see a lot of GMs shooting this down since it seems odd that "your" commlink might be 10+ kilometers away from you. This also has the side effect of attempts to track you leads to that commlink's location not your basement.

Also, I don't think reason people want to play Full Immersion Hackers isn't an immunity to TPKs. Odds are, they'll be able to find out the dude from the other PCs via their commlinks or mind probe and then take him out. The reason I see people wanting to do it is because of the "leaving the meat world behind for the wonders of the Internet!" trope. There's also huge point savings when you don't need worry about meat combat.

Before SR4, the SR world wasn't ubiquitously wireless. Secure networks wer regularly isolated from the Matrix, so deckers often HAD to physically penetrate a facility to find a jackpoint from which to hack into it's network.

I direct everyone to the cover image for Shadowrun 1st and 2nd edition. A decker, plugging his cables into a jackpoint in the facility he is breaking into, while his team holds off the opposition. THAT is the iconic image of a decker. Even the 3rd edition cover showed a similar situation. The remote decker existed, but was in no way commonplace as there were too many situations where he could not do jack squat due to lack of connection.



-k

For secured networks I would think this is still the case. I know it is for anything with classified processing. If it is hackable don't allow access, restrict to physical only for another layer of security.

Gosh golly, really? I had absolutely no idea.


Yes, runs where you had to be physically there were present. Doesn't change a thing; stay-at-home (or more often, stay-in-van) deckers were still a mainstay.


And you['d still be wrong about that. They were very, very commonplace. The Quadriplegic flaw was used like crazy.

Okay, but: why? Aside from the obvious - a device-to-device link means no routing through another connection - why would a direct connection be different from a routed connection, in terms of how the device dealt with the traffic? And why would Shadowrun include so many Signal-defeating technologies if you have to have a direct connection in order to hack [but not, presumably, to do anything else with]? Why wouldn't all secure devices simply include an on-die wireless relay, 2 nodes on one motherboard, one connected to the other through a Signal 0 link, and thus Unhackable Except From Very Near By?

Maybe this is a question someone could answer for me: this all stems from one sentence. "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." What about "have an open subscription with the node through the Matrix" doesn't make remote hacking possible?


Hmm. Well, I think we have very different ideas of how the Matrix works, might be the thing.

Well...

1. You can be in DIRECT CONTACT with the Node (and perform a Hardware hack as it were).
2. You can physicall wire directly in (Similar to the above)
3. You can remotely hack through a Wired interface (Assuming one exists)
4. You can remotely Hack through the Wireless interface if you can establish Mutual Signal Range (Through Drones or other proxy Services, Assuming it Lets you in)
5. You can hack through the Matrix (assuming a connection exists, and is similar to 3 and 4 above, dependant upon which paradigm the target uses)

Now, Functionally, 3-5 are very similar, and only depends upon the architecture of the system you are trying to hack. In the 2070's, Wireless is ubiquitous, so many of your systems will be hackable either through a Wireless connection or a Matrix Connection. SOME systems will disable the wireless connection completely (Through various means), which will then require a wired or direct connection

All of these are possible scenarios that a Hacker may encounter, dependant upon how much work is needed to establish a connection to the target host.

As for your last question. It stems from an assumption that all Systems will have a Wireless connection. If that wireless is disabled, then the only other alternative is to forge a direct connection in one way or another.

Mutual Signal Range is entertaining, though. A lot of people have commented that all you need is a satellite link and a high qualith ECCM program to completely negate the threat of Jamming. The problem with that assumption is that you must still have "Mutual" signal range. You can have all the best hardware/software in the world, with a combined Signal of 14 for Jamming Purposes; but if your target is only a Signal 3 system, with Wifi Inhibition of 3, then they have an effective Signal of 0, so you must STILL be within 3 meters to hack it (or be within the Signal Jamming Sphere, where the Wifi Inhibition on the exterior is not a factor). Quite entertaining, actually.

Not sure if this has helped answer your question, though.

You want sense in the Matrix rules? In order to do that, you'll have to rebuild the entire system up to and including first principles. You would have my blessings if you tried though because it really needs it.

Unless there really are technomantic hacking rays coming from your commlink, I'm not sure why the rules make such a big deal about mutual Signal range (including other things like pinging accessids). Then again since the matrix network layout is at best weird from a networking perceptive maybe it's some fundamental to the matrix working thing.

The subscription requirement makes a bit more sense. Since you already have a connection to the node, you have exploiting that. That's also why you can matrix punch people though them with attack programs.

Edit- One thing I might rule is that wired connections are considered to have mutual Signal range to whatever they are connected to via wires. This means wired connections isn't just better than wireless from a security standpoint. That doesn't match very well with real life, but it encourages wireless usage which is a good thing in my book for SR.



I personally think the "hand your buddy your commlink" tactic is fine ruleswise. However, I could see some GMs thinking it's cheesy or silly and not allowing it. Sadly technomancers can't hand over their bionode over.

I'm not sure if you've been following the conversation, but the upshot is that some people think 4 and 5, here, are impossible. Their interpretation is that you cannot hack a node you're connected to through the Matrix, only one you're directly connected to with a point-to-point wireless connection.


No, you're looking at something else entirely. That question is directed toward the people who think a point-to-point, node-to-node, direct wireless connection is required for hacking: they're using the first half of the clause as support for their interpretation, so I'm asking what about the second clause makes direct connections necessary. Sorry for the confusion.

But they don't make a big deal out of it, is the thing. In fact, it's one line, and that line's immediately followed by a line explaining how you hack remotely. What they do make a big deal out of is wireless-defeating technologies, which should indicate that hacking doesn't require a direct wireless link.

I don't think the authors realized the implication of that line. It wouldn't surprise me (based on hearing how other books were written) that the various matrix sections were written more or less independently by several different writers who didn't compare notes. These are the people who wrote the matrix rules in the first place after all. On the other hand due to know many players never realized this is the case, maybe it's fair they'll miss it too. And there are always houserules.

In universe, you could argue that wireless blocking paint and the like are a second line of defense. After all, any account on the node will let you hack it. This means as long as you get one wage slave's password, the system is yours. You'll want them to at least get close before they pwn your network.

Also, this isn't the first nor the last time the way NPCs act in the SR world that makes no sense with how the world works.

What if they did, but included, as the next clause, the other logical way to hack: by routing through other nodes through the Matrix [or another ad-hoc wireless network, or other method of routing]? Does "an open subscription with the node through the Matrix" mean something other than that, and if so, what?

Yes, it means something very specific and distinct from that. See SR4A p224-225, "Subscriptions."

The short version:

You can subscribe via routing (1st paragraph).

Subscribing to a node requires that you take a Complex Action to Log On (1st paragraph).

Logging on requires an access account (p225 "Access Accounts," also repeated under Log On on p231).

So, what this means is that there are, indeed, two ways to hack.

Method 1: Get in Mutual Signal Range, which means that you are within the Signal range of the shorter-ranged of the two devices with no routing. Then hack in.

Method 2: Get some kind of account without using Hacking, then hack in via routing.

Method 2 is what you can use to remote-hack stuff - but it won't work on systems that you don't have a way to get an account on without hacking. So if you want to hack the local mall, you can get a Public account (because they just let you have one), then remote-hack in by first logging onto that public account. Or, if you can get a user account some other way (such as by stealing someone's), you can hack in with that. But you can't remote hack a system if you don't have an account already.

I should also point out that kicking off whatever the original account you used to hack doesn't immediately do them any good. Hacking creates a new account that you then use*. I don't know if your original account is turned off or not. Now they may shut the account used down so you can't use it again once you are kicked. This gives a reason to care about stuff like being taken out in cybercombat or reboots which otherwise would be a "Wait for Respawn" screen.

*Hacking on the Fly immediately logs you in on the new account while Probing gives you the option to login when you want.

Yeah, see, I would say Method 2 was simply, "Connect via routing, then create an account via Hacking to log in." In this way, leaving from your home node, jumping from node to node through the Matrix, and then jumping from some router node to the destination node, is treated exactly the same as jumping directly from your home node into the target node. To me, this makes sense from both a rules perspective, and a common sense one.

edit: Out of curiosity, how do you run Probing? "Probing is a Hacking + Exploit Extended Test with a threshold equal to the target’s System + Firewall. The interval of the test is 1 hour if done in VR, 1 day if done by AR." Does this mean you've got to be within direct mutual signal range for possibly days? Also, can AIs and Agents hack without direct "mutual signal range" connections?

How many other people out there require direct mutual Signal range to hack?

I approve of that sense.

That's a perfectly reasonable houserule for you to make, but if you're going to claim it is actually what the rules themselves say, you should probably back your argument up by quoting the rules, pointing to examples in the rules, or in some other way supporting your argument instead of vaguely saying it "makes sense." As is, your argument is "well, you only showed one sentence in the rules that completely contradicts my belief, also, I'm going to ignore what "Subscription" means and claim it means something else entirely so that I'm right."

Houserules aren't bad. You don't have to pretend the text says something that it is not. Rob Boyle isn't going to go to your house and punch you in the face for changing his matrix rules. What is a subscription is well-defined and it is not matrix routing. In fact as I've pointed out before, the Half-Remembered by the GM matrix rules that nearly everyone plays by are likely going to be better than the RAW matrix rules. They at least make more sense.

Since the passage occurs when discussing hacking in general, you do have to face the requirements when probing. Agents have a node that they run on and thus hack from there. They can however unlike metahumans load themselves onto another node via hacking or having an account on the node. Thus they can hack from mutual Signal range to mutual Signal range to where they want to go. AIs I've ignored, but I assume they work similarly.

Even with the houserule, you will have to play "Find the AccessID" to remote hack and that's a fun minigame. You either have to define where the node is and make an Electronic Warfare + Scan (4) test, or you have to be in your Signal range of the node and run the extended Detect Hidden Nodes test. Better, but that means you need a good Electronic Warfare test (12+ dice) or accept you have a maximum detection range.

Take it down a notch, poncho. I'm not making an argument, I'm trying to understand other people's interpretations of a rule. If you'd like to help me understand, I would appreciate it; if you'd like to have an argument, please, keep it to yourself. You have one interpretation of the rules, which I don't think is an unreasonable interpretation: that's why I'm asking about it.


Yeah, I wasn't making an argument. I asked what other people thought the rule meant, and shared how I have been interpreting it. I didn't make any kind of argument that anyone else should run it this way, or that I'm correct for running it this way. I know it's maybe weird, but what I'm doing is asking questions. I'm not making an argument. I'm asking some questions about how you think the rules work, and how that relates to other rules. The fact that so many people who have this interpretation can't answer these questions, or choose not to, or complain I'm not supporting my "arguments" with rules, well, that makes me think that maybe some people aren't thinking this issue through fully.


Absolutely. But I'm not sure how that relates to the question. If you can hack a node with "an open subscription with the node through the Matrix," that doesn't mean that routing and subscriptions are the same, only that you can subscribe to a node through a routed Matrix connection, which I'm pretty sure everyone agrees with.

Let me ask this: if "an open subscription with the node through the Matrix" isn't saying, "indirectly," then what's it there for? They say you have two options for hacking: either direct mutual signal range, or, "an open subscription with the node through the Matrix." To me, that says that you have two options, directly or indirectly. What do you think that second option means, if it doesn't mean that you can hack in remotely? What's that phrase there for?

It seems like it's a chicken and egg issue. You believe that, absent a direct connection, you need a subscription, and then you can hack access. My read is that, absent a direct connection, you hack access to make a subscription, the exact same way you would directly. I mean, why would a direct connection be treated differently than a routed one?


Seriously? You make someone stand within meters of a node for hours or days? Why have probing rules? Anything good's only going to be accessible from 3 meters away.


Maybe I'm not clear: are you saying a metahuman can't move his persona to another node via hacking or having an account on the node?


Okay, please stop calling it that. When two people interpret a rule differently, it's a real dick move for one to call the other a house rule, because it assumes the answer to the question. I get that you're sure of your interpretation, but I for one am anything but.

Well then, let me enlighten you about it, windbreaker.


I'm not sure what questions haven't been answered, aside from "why did Rob Boyle decide to do this" to which of course nobody has a good answer.


This has been repeatedly answered. It means you can hack in remotely if you already have some kind of account. You can start with a User account and use that to meet the requirement, then hack yourself an Admin account.


I agree, the matrix rules are not terribly well thought out in many ways and this is one of them. Note that you can still get good use out of probing on systems that didn't bother with the limited accessibility (because you want to play it safe, and took extra time). You might also sometimes extract a node, then Probe it later.


I think you're confusing personas and icons. A persona is the program you run on your commlink; you cannot run your persona elsewhere just by hacking into another commlink. Icons are the things you move around on the matrix; you can indeed move your icon to another node by hacking into it.

(text moved downstream because people posted in the time I made extensive changes)

You seem to be asking questions about *why* the rules work one way and not the other, which no one save Rob Boyle can answer. If your questions were on how the matrix works, I think Umaro and Hida just answered with page numbers.



You can subscribe if you have an account as stated under subscriptions SR4A 224-225.



What is it there for is beyond the scope of the thread. No one can answer why, only what is written. If you want to ask why is it there, ask the person who wrote it (although some literary interpretations of 'the author is dead' means that even the author can't answer it).



What parts of the book support your read? I'm curious to know what supports the other *interpretation*. Also, you are asking why again, which is the second time, and is not a question on *how* the rules work (as you claim above).



I have not seen any rules in the book that explain how a metahuman can do this. Please direct me to the part that explains this (page numbers appreciated).

A few relevant pieces of text/rules, UmaroVI.



Notice that in neither case did the hacker have a legitimate account. You can hack an account remotely as the hack attempt allows you access to an account on that node thorugh the exploit phase, at which point you are logged on into that account. Depending upon what access level you were trying for, the account will have the appropriate access levels. If you have a legitimate account, it is not a hacking test, it is a computer test. Q.E.D. And note: Socially engineering an acccount is also a legitimate ploy to use for the hacker.



Again, They did not have a legitimate account, they hacked in. They are now taking the time to create an account or exploit that they can reuse when they return.



Not so very useful if you cannot Hack remotely. Obviously, they are useful, so therefore you can hack remotely.

Not sure where you get the idea that you cannot hack remotely through the Matrix. Obviously, it does not work quite the way that you think it does. If you do not have legitimate access, you must hack, and you can do that remotely, as long as you fulfill either Mutual Signal Range, or Connection through the Matrix. If you are in possession of a Legitimate Account, then you are not hacking, you are using standard computer protocols (and thus the Computer Skill, not Hacking), and must still satisfy either Mutual Signal Range, or Connection through the matrix.

Now, not all systems will be hackable at remote ranges unless steps are taken by the team to enable such things. This is where System Security Comes in. It is really not all that hard to keep a remote hacker out (though the countermeasures are also not that difficult to employ). All this will depend upon Budget (on the Target's Side) and upon the available Resources (on the Hacker's Side). It is a constant battle between securing a site and allowing it to be somewhat useable by those who use it.

Anyways, Have a nice day...

I've been worrying about this whole mutual Signal range thing, and I finally found the flaw.



This text is imprecise to the point of being wrong.

Hacking a node obviously requires accessing it:


So having MSR doesn't free you from the need for a Subscription.

What I think they meant in the core book was:



Now, this whole business with "removing the Public Account (PA) used to achieve a Subscription to begin hacking remotely" - that goes exactly the same with MSR, since MSR needs a Subscription too.

So can all computers be made unhackable by removing the PA? I don't think so.


Warning: long exposition


TL;DR version: you can't delete the PA. If someone connects to a computer without authenticating for some specific account, he gets a PA, whether the admin likes it or not.

Common (IT) sense and game mechanics

The Issue is, Ascaphalus, that you do not need to log on when you are Hacking-on-the-Fly.



So you automatically gain a subscription as soon as you have completed the Hack-on-the-Fly. The Hack automatically Logs you On and creates that Subscription Link.



Alternatively, a Probe generates an Account at the completion of the Probe. To use this account you must actually Log On (using the Action), at which point you can establish a Subscription. Probing works better, if you have the time, because there is less risk of setting off an alarm.

Both of them will allow you to hack remotely (satisfying either Mutual Signal Range or Connection through the matrix), assuming that no other countermeasures exist to help prevcent that very thing (Like an Environment that has no Matrix Connection (or only an intermittent connection), and No Wireless access outside of the facility).

I will admit that Ascalaphus has the best argument in that you can trivially get an public account from anyone. However, I believe Passive mode turns off public accounts.

You're right that the hacking requirements rule don't really matter when it comes to nodes in active mode. You might be right with nodes in Hidden mode (which is odd but whatever). But Passive nodes don't give always give out public accounts. You need approval for any access.

However, I could see the argument that there's no real difference between Passive and Action mode and even declined accessed attempts make a public account and that you can't make an arbitrary rule on your nodes (which is both supported and not supported). I don't think it's a good argument, but it's at least a case.



The passage that Umaro is using is:

Now let's look at those passages. First off they can totally apply if the hacking is done via mutual Signal range. Secondly, you just need an account to subscribe to a node. If you have the janitor's account on the system (which only has access to the timeclock program), you can legitimately login with that and then start looking for exploits (i.e. hack your way to an admin account). You can change accounts after all.

It also explains why hackers actually care about making backdoors, hidden accounts, and the like. A backdoor means you can now hack safely far away. If you could do that anyways, then why bother? Just hack back in.

Also, lowering your Signal rating to make hackers have to get close to you is listed a possible hacking defense for cyberware (Unwired 103) so it's just not a one-off thing.


It's there saying that if you have an subscription to a node open, you can hack that node. Since a subscription has a definition in the SR rules, that definition relates to the question. Opening a subscription needs an account to be made and is the same as logging on (SR4A 224 & 231, Unwired 55). The only way to get other interpretations would be to change what a subscription is.

For example if you want to hack a Signal 0 node, you can be in 3 meters with the node. You can ask the node for a public account from any connecting route though the matrix and then hack. You can get the account the janitor uses for his timeclock, logon with it, and then hack from any connecting route though the matrix.

One reason why you might need an open subscription to hack is how does one send information to the target node? You can do a data request, but I doubt "what's the admin password?" would be an acceptable request. You could guess a password, but that's nothing big. You have to get onto and trusted by the system into order to hack it. Then again since the matrix itself makes no sense (it's a network nightmare), then the fact that an explicit rule doesn't make sense shouldn't come to a surprise. If people actually cared about their Matrix secrets, then there are thousand of other ways to set hacking to no anyways.

Also, I don't have to describe perfectly how something works in the world as part of the rules. For example, I couldn't tell you how a commlink processor works (or even if it has a processor like a modern computer), I know from the rules how to run a program on a commlink. I don't know how Dr. Heinrich was able to figure out how you break all encryption but plot encryption in the order of seconds. But I know how encryption and decryption works (poorly).

As for personas, your persona never actually goes anywhere in the matrix. Instead when you open a subscription, you create an icon on the node you just made a connection (SR4A 225). Now if that node isn't running a persona, you might be able to run a persona there. How one runs and associates a persona isn't described in the books to the best of my knowledge. Agents however can just load themselves onto other nodes in independent mode (SR4A 234).

Also houserules as a bad thing. If I didn't play in Missions and ran an actual campaign*, I would allow hacking though routing regardless of what the rules say or didn't say. However it's better to call a thing what it is and not pretend it's something else. That way when we complain that RAW the matrix is terrible, we can get unified and force them to change the system in SR5 for the better. Otherwise, you end up with a bunch of internecine doublethink to wade though before you can even begin to discuss what to do about the system.

*- Actually I use HERO for my Dark Champions/Urban Fantasy genre games.

That's not at all true. For one thing, I'm asking for opinions on why a rule works some way or another, not facts. For another, designers' intent can often be inferred indirectly [or is already known certainly], by persons not the original designer. [In fact, I've found the original designers often know about as much as you or I about why a rule was written in a specific way.]


Right, and that's definitely appreciated, but have you not ever been in a situation in which two people read the same rules and interpret them differently? You keep asking for page numbers from me, but I'm not making an assertion that needs them: I'm talking about the exact same rules we've all been referring to the whole time.


Subscriptions, p224, SR4a, and Virtual Reality, p225, SR4a. It's what subscription is.

As long as we're exchanging page numbers, can anyone tell me where the page is that explains how to disable public accounts on nodes?

I guess even an "This user's profile isn't visible to everyone" screen counts as a Public Account session.

The real problem is that the activity mode rules aren't really implemented in enough detail to be useful, and they don't appear to be integrated with the other matrix rules. The only part that really "works" is the rule for detecting a Hidden mode.




Speed and convenience. You set up the backdoor/hidden account/probe-hacked account ahead of time so that when you need to go in quietly in the middle of a run, it won't take hours to do. Those are very good reasons.



I think everything regarding cyberware hacking needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, since basically they created an unnecessary vulnerability in cyberware to enable combat hacking, and then spent years explaining to players what to do with it, and ended up admitting that wifi-enabled combat cyberware just didn't make any sense.





AFAIK, no such rule exists. It's silly, but it's absolutely necessary to make the Matrix rules work. See my previous post.

Except that remote hacking can create that open subscription as part of the hack, that is what it does, according to the rules I provided.



The problem is that when you "Hack back In" you run the risk of setting an alarm off. If you have a backdoor, you have circumvented that process altogether. You only run the risk of setting an alarm if you try to do something your user privgeleges do not normally allow, or a randon sweep catches you in an authentication issue.



Yes, Of course, that is one way to protect yourself. Unless you are also connected to the Matrix at the time.



Sort of. A Log On creates the Subscription that you need. A Hack on the Fly provides the Log On as part of its hack. See the quote I provided.

@Tymeus:

I would argue that:

* Hacking a Node on the fly is "Accessing a Node".
* According to Unwired p. 55, that requires a Subscription.
* To got a Subscription, you need to Log On. You probably get a Public Account.

Then, when you succeed at hacking an account, your Public Account is upgraded to a superior class without you needing to spend another action to Log On again.

My read, based on what I'm seeing in the book, is this:

SR4a, p224: "If you want to actually visit the node in the Matrix, whether to do some “on-site” research, hack the node, or just hang out with other icons, you need to log on to the node." To parse that, if you want to hack a node, you need to log on to a node. Then it gives instructions on how this is done: "To connect to a node (aside from the one on which your persona is running), you must subscribe to it.... You must subscribe to a node if you want to 'travel' to it in the Matrix, which means that you must be able to either connect with it directly (with a wired connection, or when within mutual Signal range) or by establishing a route through the Matrix network." To make a connection to a node, you have to subscribe, which requires a direct or indirect signal path.

Then, SR4a, p225: "When you log on to a node, you do so at a certain access level, which is defined by your account. There are four types of accounts, public, user, security, and admin, in order of least to most access. Except for public accounts, access to an account level requires authorization..." When you log on, you are assigned an access level, defined by which level of account you have. Public accounts to not require authorization: it's a foyer, where a nice man is saying, Excuse me, can I please see your papers? Same page: "When logging on without any authentication, you get a public account." If you don't provide authentication, you get a public account. At this point, you have fulfilled all the requirements for a subscription, which means you have fulfilled all the requirements for hacking.

This makes sense in the context of the rules, and makes common sense as well. It doesn't make half the gear [Faraday Cages] pointless and doesn't render whole lifestyles [full immersion] useless within the context of players. It doesn't require logical convolutions like explaining why all nodes aren't just effectively unhackable [Signal 0 + retrans], or why there should be a difference between direct and routed traffic, but only in this context. I totally understand the other reading of the rule, and the semantics that make people read it that way, but I don't share the interpretation, and I don't think I'd accept it even if I did.

Any node in Active Mode will, indeed, automatically give you public accounts if you are just "yo." But in Passive or Hidden, it won't, because it will refuse to listen to you in the first place. To hack one of those, you have to get an account by some other means first, or get in Mutual Signal Range.

The results of this: most places simply cannot afford to run in Passive or Hidden. Banks, corporate sites, building nodes, etc will all have to run in Active to function, so you can remote hack them. However, people can use Passive and Hidden nodes to make it harder to remote hack. If you do this, you also need to keep a very tight lid on ALL accounts on your system; there's no point doing this if every corporate employee has a User account, for example.

The result is that you can do most stuff remotely, but you can design adventures where remote access is simply not an option. Here's an example:

A team wants to break into Shmatalyst Game Labs and steal the errata for the PEACE! supplement to Lightwalk 4th Edition. Because the errata is jealously guarded, only four people (three writers, and the head of matrix security) have accounts (user accounts for the writers, and admin for the security dude). There's no need for anyone else to ever see the node, so it always runs in Passive, and because Shmatalyst hates their fans, they have the node with signal 0 using a Satellite link.

Now, there are 2 ways in. The runners could get one of the four accounts through a "kidnap Bob Royal and beat his account out of him" plan, or they could break in, get their hacker physically next to the node, and hack it directly.

Presumably, this is WHY the rules work that way, because the writers (or at least some of them) wanted to allow GMs the option of forcing hackers to show up in person sometimes, and not just live in the van.

Okay, so you're only saying remote hacking is impossible if the target node is in Passive or Hidden mode? That seems like a different issue, but I follow what you're saying, definitely.

In this context, how does mutual signal range help? I didn't know that changes how a node in Passive or Hidden mode responds to you.


Yeah, that's my read of the situation, although I think possibly not for all of the same reasons. But yeah, you can do most stuff remotely, but the GM can totally arrange things to make that difficult or impossible: I absolutely agree.