Implication of the decker / rigger change.
Low cost deckers???
Without the need for a clunky cyber deck and presumably without the need for programs (where would you store them if you had no cyber deck?) what will deckers spend there money on. I have always seen a decker as a resources a pick but now it seems they need nothing.
There is some talk about a form of C^2 deck becoming the standard but that doesn’t make much sense to me, why would thy do away with the external cyber deck in favour of something so costly and essence intensive, the only reason to take one was covert operation.
Also riggers will become more powerful, with les spend on there interface hardware (RCD) they will be able to spend that money on more starting vehicles.
And what will happen to the otaku. There howl advantage is gone if nobody needs a deck, I can see a howl plot line of the depressed otaku that are no longer special.
Edward
Edward
Full Version: Implication of the decker / rigger change.
The "clunky" disappears. But that doesn't mean no deck. It -might- mean internal only deck, but not nessasarily. But in any event they are going to need the wi-fi hardware and -some- way to translate that into human senses.
Exactly how you arrived at RCD stuff I'm not sure?
P.S. I heard from a friend's cousin's mother who's hairdresser is a playtester that in 2069 Otaku are exposed as all being flesh forms of software bug spirits. Ares steps in and does The Right Thing™ and shoots them all. The end.
Exactly how you arrived at RCD stuff I'm not sure?
P.S. I heard from a friend's cousin's mother who's hairdresser is a playtester that in 2069 Otaku are exposed as all being flesh forms of software bug spirits. Ares steps in and does The Right Thing™ and shoots them all. The end.
Honestly Otaku need to universally suffer from a 9mm migraine.
As for the decker/rigger change maybe the deck replacement for the future uses modular pieces that can both access the wireless matrix and help command drones.
If I really wanted to increase playability of Riggers I'd place thier reaction boosting equipment within the deck replacement like reaction enhancers for the SR3 decks. That way you can save the essence cost and limited utility of VCRs that impact thier playability and have them be able to enhance themselves in different ways.
As for the decker/rigger change maybe the deck replacement for the future uses modular pieces that can both access the wireless matrix and help command drones.
If I really wanted to increase playability of Riggers I'd place thier reaction boosting equipment within the deck replacement like reaction enhancers for the SR3 decks. That way you can save the essence cost and limited utility of VCRs that impact thier playability and have them be able to enhance themselves in different ways.
| QUOTE (Vuron) |
| Honestly Otaku need to universally suffer from a 9mm migraine. As for the decker/rigger change maybe the deck replacement for the future uses modular pieces that can both access the wireless matrix and help command drones. If I really wanted to increase playability of Riggers I'd place thier reaction boosting equipment within the deck replacement like reaction enhancers for the SR3 decks. That way you can save the essence cost and limited utility of VCRs that impact thier playability and have them be able to enhance themselves in different ways. |
What I'm curious about is whether or not the mobile deckers are going to be able to avoid dropping to the floor like sacks of dung everytime they interact through their decks. Where they have two modes, one roughly akin to astral perception, the other akin to astral projection.
Picture the team going down the hallway in a facility. There is a camera there. To the rest of the team it looks like, you know, a camera. A lens, a body, an antenna for linking with the building's internal network. But to the deck he sees it as an active entity that he can interact with from a distance. The icon of the camera overlaid HUD style with the rest of the hallway. Perhaps it can only defend itself from probing, perhaps it has more active defenses in that it attacks those that are wi-fi active. But in any event the decker can try neutralize it or subvert it. Perhaps even being able to switch from "perception" to "projection" to then get into the building network and into the host.
That, I think would be cool.
I think the base command chair mode shouldn't require RAS override but if you want to really max out the capabilities of a vehicle or drone it should cost you a bit.
So if you mainly want some drones to supplement your team you can walk around with them but if you want to take firm control of a specific drone you need to lay down against a wall and enter that device.
So if you mainly want some drones to supplement your team you can walk around with them but if you want to take firm control of a specific drone you need to lay down against a wall and enter that device.
C'mon leave the otaku alone.
Evolution is when somthing changes to cope with changes in its environment and unless i'm mistaken computers are a, not all that recent, change in our environment.
Also evey few centuries evolution jumps foreward.
On second thoughts just shoot a few.
Evolution is when somthing changes to cope with changes in its environment and unless i'm mistaken computers are a, not all that recent, change in our environment.
Also evey few centuries evolution jumps foreward.
On second thoughts just shoot a few.
Ok we have slights against the playability of riggers. I found them to be the most powerful combat archetype at char gen (magicals with invoking may win latter).
The idea of a hacker seeing a cameras a assessable icon from the real world is stupid. It implies that the camera is using a wireless interface witch can be decoded in a reasonably short time frame. (seconds). This means the security contractors ignored basic protocols to prevent signal interference. Wireless connections may be convenient but they are inherently insecure. If a computer hacker can pull this kind of stunt it only proves that. And the first time somebody dose it every security installer will be buying rolls of cable by the dozen
What would make scene is an overlay interface on a hacker’s vision that shows him where he is in the matrix. Allowing him to run overwatch in vaguely the SR3 fashion. While physically participating in the run (probably a -2 penalty to all tests while viewing both worlds). If he is in a building and its security host at the same time the program would automatically link a camera seen to the corresponding camera icon in the security host but only if you previously hacked into the security host.
Edward
The idea of a hacker seeing a cameras a assessable icon from the real world is stupid. It implies that the camera is using a wireless interface witch can be decoded in a reasonably short time frame. (seconds). This means the security contractors ignored basic protocols to prevent signal interference. Wireless connections may be convenient but they are inherently insecure. If a computer hacker can pull this kind of stunt it only proves that. And the first time somebody dose it every security installer will be buying rolls of cable by the dozen
What would make scene is an overlay interface on a hacker’s vision that shows him where he is in the matrix. Allowing him to run overwatch in vaguely the SR3 fashion. While physically participating in the run (probably a -2 penalty to all tests while viewing both worlds). If he is in a building and its security host at the same time the program would automatically link a camera seen to the corresponding camera icon in the security host but only if you previously hacked into the security host.
Edward
i really wish people would pay attention to what the playtesters say, and do the minimal amount of sitting down and thinking that it takes to connect the dots. in this particular case, for instance, several of the freelancers have outright stated that there are still cyberdecks, and that the key word in that FAQ is "clunky". therefore, it might be logical to assume that there are still cyberdecks in SR4, but that they won't be cyberdeck-sized. they might be palm-pilot sized, or they might be 0.1 essence chip installed in your head sized. hell, they might be a computer that stays in one place, that you access over the Intarwebs. whatever form they take, though, it's clear from playtester comments that cyberdecks are still around in some form or fashion in SR4.
and, actually, wirelessly hacking a camera implies nothing about the camera. it merely implies that the computer the camera is hooked into has wireless connectivity.
and, actually, wirelessly hacking a camera implies nothing about the camera. it merely implies that the computer the camera is hooked into has wireless connectivity.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| i really wish people would pay attention to what the playtesters say, and do the minimal amount of sitting down and thinking that it takes to connect the dots. in this particular case, for instance, several of the freelancers have outright stated that there are still cyberdecks, and that the key word in that FAQ is "clunky". |
The playtesters (well I only recall Patrick actually mentioning it) stated that the word 'cyberdeck' still existed in the manuscripts he had read. The FAQ blurb lists the cyberdeck's dissapearance as one of the main reasons for the change to the term 'hacker'. There are many conclusions that can be reached when only half of the facts are given, and wording is purposely oblique.
| QUOTE (Edward @ Apr 19 2005, 08:50 AM) |
| The idea of a hacker seeing a cameras a assessable icon from the real world is stupid. It implies that the camera is using a wireless interface witch can be decoded in a reasonably short time frame. (seconds). |
Sorry, I should have explained better. If the device was a node of a host system (typical in a building) prior to going down the hallway the decker would have established a presense on the host system network. This would be akin to a Login. Yes this bends reality, but unfortunately such is the encryption/decryption wierdness of SR that is done for playability. *shrug*
EDIT: That is to say, forcing or faking your way through a Login in a quick manner bends reality. That once you are in and validated by the system that you can see nodes (barring subsections that you need higher security rating to pass easily into) isn't that bad of a leap at all.
If the device was directly connected to the Matrix (public utility appliances, or installations where the host is the device because the facility is too small) then you'd see the icon straight up, but would still have to Login to stutbly influence it. Brute force might be an option without Login, roughly equivalent to today's DOS attacks.
Likewise if you weren't logged into the system when you went down the hallway and the camera was using wi-fi (a convience technology, admittedly unusaul in a Super-sekrit operation with high bankroll) you'd still see the icon, but could only brute force (DOS) attack it.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| i really wish people would pay attention to what the playtesters say, and do the minimal amount of sitting down and thinking that it takes to connect the dots. in this particular case, for instance, several of the freelancers have outright stated that there are still cyberdecks, and that the key word in that FAQ is "clunky". therefore, it might be logical to assume that there are still cyberdecks in SR4, but that they won't be cyberdeck-sized. they might be palm-pilot sized, or they might be 0.1 essence chip installed in your head sized. hell, they might be a computer that stays in one place, that you access over the Intarwebs. whatever form they take, though, it's clear from playtester comments that cyberdecks are still around in some form or fashion in SR4. and, actually, wirelessly hacking a camera implies nothing about the camera. it merely implies that the computer the camera is hooked into has wireless connectivity. |
Your first paragraph is hard to comply with when I don’t know who is a developer and who is giving there private opinion, I am going on eth FAQ that said there is no such thing as a deck and thus the term Decker is no longer used (strange considering how well names tend to stick even after what they where named for is gone. It was 5 years after the R&I bank changed its name to bank west before people stoped referring to the R&I tower in Perth. Various cavalry units still derive names from horses in spit of the fact that horses have not been commonly used in warfare for decade and classes of musical instruments are named for materials that are no longer commonly used in there construction.
To your second paragraph you made my point for me. It makes no difference if the camera has a wireless connection or if a small computer attached to and physically close to the camera has a wireless connection to the rest of the security systems. There is a wireless system that can be quickly infiltrated or easily jammed on which the security cameras are dependant. Cables may be cut more easily but finding them takes time and they are very difficult to access for long enough to tap into without drawing attention. They are also relatively cheep.
Edward
| QUOTE (Edward @ Apr 19 2005, 11:36 AM) |
| To your second paragraph you made my point for me. It makes no difference if the camera has a wireless connection or if a small computer attached to and physically close to the camera has a wireless connection to the rest of the security systems. There is a wireless system that can be quickly infiltrated or easily jammed on which the security cameras are dependant. Cables may be cut more easily but finding them takes time and they are very difficult to access for long enough to tap into without drawing attention. They are also relatively cheep. Edward |
The wireless connection might be all the way back at a public Matix switch point.
Yes, you could flood an area with RF jamming equipment, but SR3 had electronic jamming rules. So such could be overcome, you just need to pack a bigger amplifier.
Rigger 3 also had network hardwire tapping and infiltartion rules. They might have added hardwire taps that have an wi-fi interface so you tap the building once and then roam from that tap.
In the end you're going to have to accept at least a small amount of bending of reality for the tech to work, otherwise you shouldn't be playing SR. Just the powering of cyberlimbs without at least recharge rules is a huge leap of belief.
i'm going off what's been said by the playtesters on the boards. one of the things that several playtesters have said is that the FAQs don't quite give the whole story on the issues they touch.
There's a difference between accepting some flex in technology and pretending physics are different in SR. Hopefully, unlike old Decking, the designers will go with the prior.
| QUOTE (Raskolnikov) |
| There's a difference between accepting some flex in technology and pretending physics are different in SR. Hopefully, unlike old Decking, the designers will go with the prior. |
Ok, accepting a LOT of flex.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| What I'm curious about is whether or not the mobile deckers are going to be able to avoid dropping to the floor like sacks of dung everytime they interact through their decks. Where they have two modes, one roughly akin to astral perception, the other akin to astral projection. |
err, when you sleep you dont turn into a sack of potatos. you do toss and turn at times indepentet of what your dreaming of. still, i have allways found it a bit odd that a system like the RAS can be put into a cyberdeck and be able to override the brain while skillwires needs to go into the body to work. why not just place the right clips and links at the right part of the brain and spinal colom and then insert some signals? that is unless what the RAS realy does is put the user into dream sleep, gives a new meaning to sleeping on the job
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| Where they have two modes, one roughly akin to astral perception, the other akin to astral projection. |
As for astral perception/projection analogies, what about overlay vs full imersion VR.
| QUOTE |
| Picture the team going down the hallway in a facility. There is a camera there. To the rest of the team it looks like, you know, a camera. A lens, a body, an antenna for linking with the building's internal network. But to the deck he sees it as an active entity that he can interact with from a distance. The icon of the camera overlaid HUD style with the rest of the hallway. Perhaps it can only defend itself from probing, perhaps it has more active defenses in that it attacks those that are wi-fi active. But in any event the decker can try neutralize it or subvert it. Perhaps even being able to switch from "perception" to "projection" to then get into the building network and into the host. That, I think would be cool. |
If SR4 hacking would be anything like this I would definetly NOT play SR4. Hopefully it won't. Wi-Fi enabled security cameras is plain stupid (though not entirely unplausible, as people are stupid).
If you instead fly up a small drone which taps a cable connected to the camera and then is able to hack the camera (or the signal from the camera), SR4 hacking would be both plausible and cool.
Though, what you describe might be the SR4 version of Otaku (which I really aren't looking forward to).
no, see. when the wireless decker sees that camera, the camera isn't the one that shows him its icon. the computer system that the camera is hooked up to shows the decker the camera's icon, because the decker has already hacked the computer via wireless connection and has access to the computer's physical security control functions. anybody who doesn't have that access, legitimate or hacked, sees just a regular camera with no icon.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| no, see. when the wireless decker sees that camera, the camera isn't the one that shows him its icon. the computer system that the camera is hooked up to shows the decker the camera's icon, because the decker has already hacked the computer via wireless connection and has access to the computer's physical security control functions. anybody who doesn't have that access, legitimate or hacked, sees just a regular camera with no icon. |
And why would that computer be accessible via wi-fi? Besides sheer stupidity (AKA the Wireless Matrix hype). If the answer is that the hacker has physically connected to a part of the security system and has established a wi-fi connection to that connection, it sounds OK. Tapping the camera signal may be such physical connection, and I love the idea of having drones for that purpose (Hobgoblin's idea, at least where I first saw it).
It is possible the camera communicates with the network via an insecure standard data tansfer protocol, as opposed to a dedicated video fee protocol. There are advanatages to having every datatype use one communication protocol, it's the kind of thing we see today. The hacker may have gained access to the company system through the building matrix link, something needs to supply wandering managers with real-time data about their team members' workloads. The hacker may have come through the more guarded but potentially venerable servers for advertisement or matrix presence (webservers) or their communications interfaces (mail servers).
In a perfect, secure, world systems would follow a shelled security structure that isolated critical systems and chocked any access to the outside that they absolutely had to have. I doubt the new system will allow this, since it's not as cyber-punky, but they'd have to really screw up the system to match the ingrained vulnerability of architecture that the Matrix protocols represented. Never mind the sheer insanity of processing allocation and work division.
In a perfect, secure, world systems would follow a shelled security structure that isolated critical systems and chocked any access to the outside that they absolutely had to have. I doubt the new system will allow this, since it's not as cyber-punky, but they'd have to really screw up the system to match the ingrained vulnerability of architecture that the Matrix protocols represented. Never mind the sheer insanity of processing allocation and work division.
because it's the same computer that's used for research, accounting, sales, and the CEO's massive pr0n collection. at least, that seems to be how SR's hosts seem to work: you have one big computer that handles everything.
| QUOTE (audun) | ||
And why would that computer be accessible via wi-fi? Besides sheer stupidity (AKA the Wireless Matrix hype). If the answer is that the hacker has physically connected to a part of the security system and has established a wi-fi connection to that connection, it sounds OK. Tapping the camera signal may be such physical connection, and I love the idea of having drones for that purpose (Hobgoblin's idea, at least where I first saw it). |
Or they system is connected to the Matrix proper, via hardline likely. The deck is using it's wi-fi system to go out to the Matrix to whatever wi-fi station, then through the Matrix hardlines into the host. Like an overwatch, only the decker/hacker also is there in the meat to see what his friends are doing and to work on whatever hardware isn't available via the Matrix.
BTW those of you freaking about the idea of wi-fi security devices, keep this in mind:
1) 100's of thousands, if not millions of security systems in North America run partially or fully on remote radio frequency sensors. It is common for home security systems to use these. Why? Because they are much easier to install or extend in existing homes than it is to run wires. Lower end systems, yes. But 'runners aren't always going to be breaking into the Pentagon or Ares military compounds.
2) Even with wires running to security devices there is hot tapping, or at least in SR3 (Rigger 3) there was. The extra deterrent of having to hot tap isn't huge given the normal barrier (the walls) to hot tapping doesn't exist in SR for any building with an external keypad, cardreader, etc. They just need an Electronics check (i believe) to pop off the device cover and away they go with about the same difficulty of penetrating a SR3 radio frequency network (drones, Rigger 3).
3) There are security devices that require some sort of remote system, either direct LOS light based or radio frequency. Mobile drones are what spring to mind here. You could have the drones being controled by a separate system, perhaps with a dedicated rigger. But that's money and a barrier to coordinating security breach responses.
4) Even today business networks are often built partially with wi-fi nodes. Properly set up they are fairly hard to spoof into, but in SR(3) reality bends and you can crack advanced encryption schemes in minutes or even seconds. *shrug* Once on the system via a different subsystem it's a matter of the hacker working their way to where they want to be.
5) Millions more security systems right now rely on radio frequency activation/deactivation. If you happen to have a car made in the last 5 years there is a good chance it has one of these. Even some home security systems use key fobs, and remote garage doors (a primative electronic security system) have been around for decades now.
6) Security isn't about being undefeatable. It is about being a deterent. Being hard enough and/or risky enough to beat that it isn't worth the effort. But sometimes the payoff or difficulty is incorrectly estimated, giving the assailants the edge. Runners make a living out of exploiting edges.
So there are some situations where totally hardwired systems, or more likely fully issolated subsystems, are used. But there are plenty of reasons for using a system based partially or fully on RF (wi-fi) communications.
P.S. In Rigger 3 building security was already an overlap domain for Deckers and Riggers. That is why I suspect this is an area where the Hacker domain begins, with one foot in both the old fields.
1) 100's of thousands, if not millions of security systems in North America run partially or fully on remote radio frequency sensors. It is common for home security systems to use these. Why? Because they are much easier to install or extend in existing homes than it is to run wires. Lower end systems, yes. But 'runners aren't always going to be breaking into the Pentagon or Ares military compounds.
2) Even with wires running to security devices there is hot tapping, or at least in SR3 (Rigger 3) there was. The extra deterrent of having to hot tap isn't huge given the normal barrier (the walls) to hot tapping doesn't exist in SR for any building with an external keypad, cardreader, etc. They just need an Electronics check (i believe) to pop off the device cover and away they go with about the same difficulty of penetrating a SR3 radio frequency network (drones, Rigger 3).
3) There are security devices that require some sort of remote system, either direct LOS light based or radio frequency. Mobile drones are what spring to mind here. You could have the drones being controled by a separate system, perhaps with a dedicated rigger. But that's money and a barrier to coordinating security breach responses.
4) Even today business networks are often built partially with wi-fi nodes. Properly set up they are fairly hard to spoof into, but in SR(3) reality bends and you can crack advanced encryption schemes in minutes or even seconds. *shrug* Once on the system via a different subsystem it's a matter of the hacker working their way to where they want to be.
5) Millions more security systems right now rely on radio frequency activation/deactivation. If you happen to have a car made in the last 5 years there is a good chance it has one of these. Even some home security systems use key fobs, and remote garage doors (a primative electronic security system) have been around for decades now.
6) Security isn't about being undefeatable. It is about being a deterent. Being hard enough and/or risky enough to beat that it isn't worth the effort. But sometimes the payoff or difficulty is incorrectly estimated, giving the assailants the edge. Runners make a living out of exploiting edges.
So there are some situations where totally hardwired systems, or more likely fully issolated subsystems, are used. But there are plenty of reasons for using a system based partially or fully on RF (wi-fi) communications.
P.S. In Rigger 3 building security was already an overlap domain for Deckers and Riggers. That is why I suspect this is an area where the Hacker domain begins, with one foot in both the old fields.
A comprehensive security system in an era when RF can be intercepted and decoded in minutes and an electronic keypad can be used to hack into a hardwired system (not likely but that I will accept) a security system should be hardwired and every access point (including key pads and cameras) should be watched by a camera, this may sound like a lot of work but it is only 2 cameras in each room, corridor and 2 or more watching each entry. Now if somebody tries to tap into your hardwired system you will see him doing it.
Edward
Edward
| QUOTE (Edward @ Apr 19 2005, 10:16 PM) |
| A comprehensive security system in an era when RF can be intercepted and decoded in minutes and an electronic keypad can be used to hack into a hardwired system (not likely but that I will accept) a security system should be hardwired and every access point (including key pads and cameras) should be watched by a camera, this may sound like a lot of work but it is only 2 cameras in each room, corridor and 2 or more watching each entry. Now if somebody tries to tap into your hardwired system you will see him doing it. Edward |
Remember, the goal of security is only a deterent. The system you suggest can be cracked into as well, it just needs an initial obscurement of the camera.
EDIT: Or they come through the Matrix access line if the system isn't fully issolated. Full issolation would actually add a fair amount to the cost of running the system as you would need live meatbodies as go-betweens for the security responses to the outside world and to any mobile drones.
On the other hand even if you do get into the building's security system via RF you likely aren't guaranteed to go unnoticed indefiantely, or move from node to node and subsystem to subsystem with impunity.
P.S. Security can also be based on precieved risk and threat. In case you didn't know some businesses put up dummy cameras for security. Empty cases whose only working part is a small red LED. Another example is my house, which is protected by a security system....sign posted out front in my flower bed. Some day the SO will get around to signing up for a monitoring service. But until then there is the sign left over from the last people who owned the house.
If a camera is obscured you send a meat body to investigate the cause.
As for deterrent systems, why use expensive wiles tec that can be easily interfered with. The wireless systems today are actually far more secure because of there simplicity. The control panel can not be controlled by the radio system, it only listens for a couple of signals typically all clear, alarm and system fault. Anything else is ignored the best a warless hacker could hop to achieve is spoofing the all clear signal, you couldn’t use the warless interface for the camera to open a door.
In SR3 it seems to be preserved that there are lots of placed you can interface your cyber deck to control the security system, EG a door panel. Personally if I was designing a door panel connected to a central security network it would not be an access point. The door panel would have 2 wires leading to the computer port witch would receive a binary signal from the panel. Any binary signal received would be compared to the access codes on record and another code would not be considered for 5 seconds. 5 incorrect codes and you send out a meet guard. Suddenly sequencers and panel tampering are all but useless because you don’t have access to the processors. Even on a warless system you can do this. A camera sends an encrypted video feed, it receives encrypted data on witch way to point, its programming will interpret any other information as garbage.
But apparently once you have small cheep computers controlling security aserts you have to accept that they will be hacked rather than programming them for a specific task and ignore any other data.
Edward
As for deterrent systems, why use expensive wiles tec that can be easily interfered with. The wireless systems today are actually far more secure because of there simplicity. The control panel can not be controlled by the radio system, it only listens for a couple of signals typically all clear, alarm and system fault. Anything else is ignored the best a warless hacker could hop to achieve is spoofing the all clear signal, you couldn’t use the warless interface for the camera to open a door.
In SR3 it seems to be preserved that there are lots of placed you can interface your cyber deck to control the security system, EG a door panel. Personally if I was designing a door panel connected to a central security network it would not be an access point. The door panel would have 2 wires leading to the computer port witch would receive a binary signal from the panel. Any binary signal received would be compared to the access codes on record and another code would not be considered for 5 seconds. 5 incorrect codes and you send out a meet guard. Suddenly sequencers and panel tampering are all but useless because you don’t have access to the processors. Even on a warless system you can do this. A camera sends an encrypted video feed, it receives encrypted data on witch way to point, its programming will interpret any other information as garbage.
But apparently once you have small cheep computers controlling security aserts you have to accept that they will be hacked rather than programming them for a specific task and ignore any other data.
Edward
| QUOTE (Edward @ Apr 20 2005, 02:27 AM) |
| If a camera is obscured you send a meat body to investigate the cause. |
Not if it is a successful Physical illusion.
| QUOTE |
As for deterrent systems, why use expensive wiles tec that can be easily interfered with. The wireless systems today are actually far more secure because of there simplicity. The control panel can not be controlled by the radio system, it only listens for a couple of signals typically all clear, alarm and system fault. Anything else is ignored the best a warless hacker could hop to achieve is spoofing the all clear signal, you couldn’t use the warless interface for the camera to open a door. |
If you are talking about RL house security, as far as i've been able to determine the wireless sensors are only polled every so many minutes (to conserve batteries). If the main control unit receives back a "I'm sensor #x, and I'm ok" as a response then that is good enough. If you were able to initially time it precisely to jam an alarm signal from the sensor, then smash the sensor, and then spoof the sensor replying to the polling then you've beat it. Of course if you knew the physical location of the system components it'd be easier to just break in, run to the central system, and disable that (through brute force) before the passcode timeout.
| QUOTE |
| In SR3 it seems to be preserved that there are lots of placed you can interface your cyber deck to control the security system, EG a door panel. Personally if I was designing a door panel connected to a central security network it would not be an access point. The door panel would have 2 wires leading to the computer port witch would receive a binary signal from the panel. Any binary signal received would be compared to the access codes on record and another code would not be considered for 5 seconds. 5 incorrect codes and you send out a meet guard. Suddenly sequencers and panel tampering are all but useless because you don’t have access to the processors. Even on a warless system you can do this. A camera sends an encrypted video feed, it receives encrypted data on witch way to point, its programming will interpret any other information as garbage. |
In SR devices are all assumed intellegent to some extent, and capable of passing data packets around. *shrug* You know "the toaster has an IP" dream. The theory is that once you get on this constantly humming stream of data, with good enough hardware/software/skills you can slip in unnoticed data/code (they are pretty much one and the same in SR computing) that can subvert the functioning of devices and the host.
Of course you can try dream up all sorts of changes to this and that to make the system super secure. But remember SR is a game, not a simulation. It's like someone going in to a movie like Ocean's Twelve and expecting the plot to be intellectually deep and logical.
Don't over think it, it'll just hurt your head.| QUOTE |
| But apparently once you have small cheep computers controlling security aserts you have to accept that they will be hacked rather than programming them for a specific task and ignore any other data. Edward |
Ya, theoritically as a system increases in computational power and abilities it also tends to increase in complexity, and along with that the range of possibilities of being made to do something initially unintended ("hacked").
The part of SR hacking that really annoys me is encryption.
A rating 12 encryption system (about the best you can get) can be beaten buy a competent Decker with a rating 6 decrypt utility in a matter of minutes. Compare this to today where consumer encryption products take days or months for a super computer to crack and if America can crack there own encryption cods within a couple of years (with the benefit of knowing how the system worked) they commission a new encryption program.
Edward
A rating 12 encryption system (about the best you can get) can be beaten buy a competent Decker with a rating 6 decrypt utility in a matter of minutes. Compare this to today where consumer encryption products take days or months for a super computer to crack and if America can crack there own encryption cods within a couple of years (with the benefit of knowing how the system worked) they commission a new encryption program.
Edward
| QUOTE (Edward @ Apr 20 2005, 09:58 AM) |
| The part of SR hacking that really annoys me is encryption. |
Ya, that part really bugs me too. But it helps to think of decrypt utility as more of a set of kiddie scripts that try to exploit software defects and backdoors secretly planted by manufacturers and/or governement agencies. The higher the rating the more they know the better chance they find one that that particular encryption is vulnerable too. Likewise higher rated encryption has fewer flaws and/or harder to exploit flaws for decryption attempt to match up with and exploit.
It's not a perfect concept, but I find it more paletable than assuming whatever the 2064 equivalent of 128-bit RSA is can be cracked by brute force in seconds with the equivalent of a current day PC.
Aren't there codes today that have yet to be officially cracked?
As in, if they have been those responsible ain't talking about it.
That and Broadcast encryption is statistically difficult to break in SR3 as is, from everything I've read. 1, you can't record and crack later, must be done live. 2, a rating 3 broadcast encryption system foils most rating 6 decryption based on the rules.
As in, if they have been those responsible ain't talking about it.
That and Broadcast encryption is statistically difficult to break in SR3 as is, from everything I've read. 1, you can't record and crack later, must be done live. 2, a rating 3 broadcast encryption system foils most rating 6 decryption based on the rules.
| QUOTE (Nikoli @ Apr 20 2005, 10:50 AM) |
| Aren't there codes today that have yet to be officially cracked? As in, if they have been those responsible ain't talking about it. |
Shhhhhhhhhhhh
*points to a sign that reads "No talking. Belief suspension in progress."*
| QUOTE |
| That and Broadcast encryption is statistically difficult to break in SR3 as is, from everything I've read. 1, you can't record and crack later, must be done live. 2, a rating 3 broadcast encryption system foils most rating 6 decryption based on the rules. |
I forget how it shakes out, but it is horrendously expensive on both sides. I'll look it up now....
if I recall correctly broadcast encryption is an apposed rating test. 3 dice target 6 and 6 dice target 3 I think the decrypt will win. And even if you don’t you can try again.
The no recording also doesn’t make sense. It dose for rigger encryption because cracking that involves sending signals and influencing there system but for standard radio cams you should be able to record it.
Edward
The no recording also doesn’t make sense. It dose for rigger encryption because cracking that involves sending signals and influencing there system but for standard radio cams you should be able to record it.
Edward
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.