Full Version: Dominating a Host
If a really skilled decker was to take on a host that was really easy for him (or her), then could he convievably dominate the host such that he could control the host's Security Tally and Alert status? Where I am going with this is simple, assume that the decker's goal was to take control quickly and prevent even a passive alert from happening and then essentially "shutting off" the system's ability to hinder him so that he could have free access to the system? Naturally, with the larger hosts, this would be much more difficult, but would it be impossible? For those of you (read:most) who used to play the SEGA Genesis version, then I am sure that you would remember how if you could control the CPU then you could essentially keep control the alert status indefinately. I would assume that the answer would have to be yes, since the thing is a computer, or rather a network of computers. It seems that there would have to be some way to pull this off.
logically? yes. in game terms? no.
if you know anything about computers, here's the best way to deal with SR's matrix system. first, acquire a spoon. second, use the spoon to scoop out the part of your brain that knows about computers. from that point on, you'll never have any problems with it.
if you know anything about computers, here's the best way to deal with SR's matrix system. first, acquire a spoon. second, use the spoon to scoop out the part of your brain that knows about computers. from that point on, you'll never have any problems with it.
So far, that's the best reply 
One can emulate the effect by creating Superuser accounts, and thus never generate higher tallies during their stay. If the host is that easy to Control that is.
even then, there are things you can't do without generating a sec tally. i don't have my book on me atm, so i can't tell you what they are, but even a super acct isn't carte blanche.
Amazing, so if the host was just a three-computer network set up by the local Dell equivelant company for Joe-Shmoe's UOL online junk-bargain-business, but he could afford to put a low-level security system on it (Read: Blue 2) then, according to the rules, even Diabolique herself couldn't keep the damned thing from going into alert status's other than to rely on her Detection Factor? I assume then, that at least the Dell guy can handle it. Does anyone know if the Dell guy is available for my next run?
Right, because the security tally is operated in such a way that it may not phsycally be able to be reset by anyone except a person sitting at the console. That's not so hard of a thing to believe. In fact, its a fairly good way to build a system you want secure.
Against a TN of 12+, that Blue-2 host isn't going to be racking up enough tally to trigger a Passive Alert for a very long time.
~J
~J
Target number 12+?
What am I missing? If the decker only had a detection factor of something like 8 then the target number would only be 8 right? Sure, it would be only every third to fifth Sys Op (Blue 2 example) that would trigger a single tally jump, but it would happen. Is there something that I am missing on the target numbers of hosts? (not being cute, its just that I don't know)
What am I missing? If the decker only had a detection factor of something like 8 then the target number would only be 8 right? Sure, it would be only every third to fifth Sys Op (Blue 2 example) that would trigger a single tally jump, but it would happen. Is there something that I am missing on the target numbers of hosts? (not being cute, its just that I don't know)
| QUOTE (Max Denim @ Apr 18 2004, 10:25 PM) |
| Target number 12+? What am I missing? If the decker only had a detection factor of something like 8 then the target number would only be 8 right? Sure, it would be only every third to fifth Sys Op (Blue 2 example) that would trigger a single tally jump, but it would happen. Is there something that I am missing on the target numbers of hosts? (not being cute, its just that I don't know) |
You've got the rules right. Kagetenshi was refering to the Detection factor of a "skilled" decker at a guess which would be in the 12+ area
indeed, especially after you drop 6 hacking pool into your DF.
| QUOTE (BitBasher) |
| Right, because the security tally is operated in such a way that it may not phsycally be able to be reset by anyone except a person sitting at the console. That's not so hard of a thing to believe. In fact, its a fairly good way to build a system you want secure. |
Yes, but the problem is that there are no canon rules for a PC to ever be "sitting at the console". I think the point of the original post is: how does one get to that point? *Are* their rules set up for some sort of "Ultimate Administrator" account, that can actually go into the system and change its environment varialbes and system settings like the Security Sheaf or an individual user's Security Tally?
nope. the parts of a host that control sec tally and IC are magically inaccessible.
| QUOTE (Shockwave_IIc) |
| You've got the rules right. Kagetenshi was refering to the Detection factor of a "skilled" decker at a guess which would be in the 12+ area |
And really that's not very hard at all, assuming your GM allows rules from Matrix. A decker with Masking 7 and Sleaze 7, running in Masking mode (Masking * 1.5, p. 123) and with the maximum of six dice allocated to Detection Factor increase (p. 26) has a DF of (10+7)/2 + 3 = 12. All that you need is an MPCP of 7, which you can get in a stock cyberterminal you can get for 250kY, a Sleaze 7 program, and a few cheap boosts to your Hacking Pool like a level 3 Math SPU.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| nope. the parts of a host that control sec tally and IC are magically inaccessible. |
See, I don't like that answer. I get enough "It's magic" arguments in the Magic chapter; don't put it in my computer too!
| QUOTE |
| nope. the parts of a host that control sec tally and IC are magically inaccessible. |
There's no magic to it. just like where I work, there are some accounts and functions that you must phyically sit at the hardware itself to use. No remote account has the functions. Period. It's not magic, its security. There's no rules for actually sitting att eh console in SR, and I'm not sure why, because I think there should be for cases when a team can actually get a decker into a server room physically. That doesn't make the way it works any less reasonable, barring the missing rules.
that's what i mean--they're magically inaccessible, even if you're physically at the console. can't mess with 'em, period. and, no, that answer doesn't really satisfy me, either, but SR's rules have given me enough bruises on my forehead for now.
Theyre not magically inacessable, there just weren;t rules provided for it, theres a difference.
Theres no rules for going to the bathroom but that doesn't mean that everyone in the SR universe "Magically doesnt go to the bathroom". It just means the book happened not to address it.
So, like, uhm, nobody has house rules?
?
?
yes, but how often do you need rules for going to the bathroom? compare that to how often a decker hacks the controlling terminal for a host--or how often it would happen, if there were rules for doing so.
besides which, there are programs available now that let you control a remote computer as if you were physically sitting in front of it--you see their desktop, you control their mouse, typing on your keyboard shows up on their screen, etc. is this type of software going to cease to exist, by 2060?
besides which, there are programs available now that let you control a remote computer as if you were physically sitting in front of it--you see their desktop, you control their mouse, typing on your keyboard shows up on their screen, etc. is this type of software going to cease to exist, by 2060?
| QUOTE |
| yes, but how often do you need rules for going to the bathroom? compare that to how often a decker hacks the controlling terminal for a host--or how often it would happen, if there were rules for doing so. |
Oh, I completely agree it should have been brought up. I wont argue there. That makes perfect sense. Now it's just up to a GM.
| QUOTE |
| besides which, there are programs available now that let you control a remote computer as if you were physically sitting in front of it--you see their desktop, you control their mouse, typing on your keyboard shows up on their screen, etc. is this type of software going to cease to exist, by 2060? |
Yeah, but unless you're an absolute retard you never, ever install a client version of something like that on a server you want to stay secure. That's a nightmare. Not only that, but if the software is even remotely secure you can't dial into that that without a server callback. You call in and verify password and security info, hang up and set your modem to answer. If you aren't at the phone number your security info has listed on the server (You do not get to change or even access this when you call in) then you get squat. On Direct IP's if your PC isn't connecting from a specific MAC address then you cant get in, and even if the MAC is correct you have to have a valid security certificate installed or you're toast. On remote systems if anyone gives invalid info 3 times all external connections to remote are cut off till someone at the phsical console re enables it.
It's really, really easy to make it physically impossible to do anything remotely. In reality SR's computers are not really fantastic for security but it makes for a more playable game.
It's really, really easy to make it physically impossible to do anything remotely. In reality SR's computers are not really fantastic for security but it makes for a more playable game.
i dunno. 'playability' is a poor excuse--Uplink is very playable, and it's way more realistic than SR's decking rules. i think the basic design concept behind SR's Matrix rules is flawed, to be honest--they tried too hard to make decking accessible to everyone. but, in my experience, most of the people who like playing deckers are into computers in real life to some degree already; the 'accessibility' of SR's Matrix rules is a real turn-off to most of the players who'd be interested in the ruleset to begin with!
I would like to point out that the entirety of networking and computer tech was rebuilt after the crash of 29. Decking in SR is not supposed to have to bear any resemblance of the way it works today. It's based on an entirely different set of technologies and methodologies.
That itself creates some other issues, but thats the way it is supposed to be. just beacuse its not done the way we do it in the real word means nothing in SR canon.
That itself creates some other issues, but thats the way it is supposed to be. just beacuse its not done the way we do it in the real word means nothing in SR canon.
Great. So, back to the original question. Is it safe to say that it is the general consensus that it is impossible to completely dominate even the simplest of hosts, regardless of skill or deck, other than to rely on a system's general inability to generate higher Detection Factors in a timely fashion? Or would the general agreement be that this really is just an uncovered issue that would demand house rules to resolve?
Pretty much yes.
Also, I would never allow that to be done remotely, the decker would have to be at the console to perform those actions.
Also, I would never allow that to be done remotely, the decker would have to be at the console to perform those actions.
there will still be a lot of things in common between pre- and post-crash computers. a wood house and a brick house share a lot of common features--doors, windows, a roof--even though they're built out of different materials. SR computing isn't even consistent between the three computer 'types' (servers, cyberdecks, PCs).
I would agree with you there. Any good ideas on a solid house rule for such an operation (not the remote part; that was added to the post and is not the concern)?
if you're physically at the terminal, i'd just make it a Control test using Validate. if you've got a security account, you can automatically lower or raise the sec tally of any icon you're aware of; if you've got a superuser account, you can add to or remove from the security sheaf.
Good stuff. What do you mean by Security Accounts and Superuser accounts? I understand what you mean from a literal standpoint as Security Accounts obviously mean that you have security access, and a Superuser account must be like having complete access to the host, but what I am asking is from a Shadowrun Rules standpoint, what defines each, and how would a decker have each? If this is covered in the 3rd Edition Matrix book, then I will soon find out, as I just ordered a copy and should get it soon, but if it is not, then I would love to know how a decker would obtain (or trick the system into believing that I have) a Superuser account or Security account. Either way, thanks for the good advise.
| QUOTE |
| If this is covered in the 3rd Edition Matrix |
it is! 
yep. pages 37-40. getting a valid account of a given type (user, security, admin) allows you to do certain actions--defined by the account type--for free. no checks, no chance of running up security tally.
Excellent. That pretty much covers it then. Thanks for the help.
Max
Max
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.