Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Business?
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 11:57:18 -0800
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Bruce Ford wrote:

> *****Private: Faerie
> >>>>>[++Encryption Daedilus Routine++ At the moment, the two jobs I
have

<<snip>>

> will be forthcoming but at this time these have priority. ++End
> Encryption++
>
> If interested in either please let me know.]<<<<<
> -- Micheal Morningstar <00:26:15/03-03-2059>

A little niggling point.

There was a rather big discussion about a year ago regarding encryption.
At the time there was a growing use of more and more encryption "headers"
that people were using to show how _really_ encrypted their posts were.
While not quite so bad that the Encryption to message ratio was falling
below 1, it was pretty bad. General consensus on the list was that the
use of the *****PRIVATE: header was a sign of significant encryption,
rerouting, etc. and that per list rules already put the message off limits
from anyone but the recipient other than by the specific approval of those
involved. If one needed a character to get ahold of a message that wasn't
sent to then, then it didn't matter how much encryption was put on the
message anyway. You simply had to stipulate that it was defeated (with
the necessary implication of the proficiency of the deckers involved).
So, therefore, additional encryption headers were basically pointless and
should not be used, unless under very special circumstances. Say, for
example, if they were used internal to a post sent to many people (or
publicly) for "eye's only" access to certain parts of the message.

Since the message is already *****PRIVATE to Faerie, then I don't see the
reason why the section you encrypted needed to be any more private than
the rest of it. (As a side note, since I know a little more about the
character than you do, too much technomantic legendermain may make the
post quite unreadable for her...but I guess that is up to Jaimie to
decide.)

--My two yen

Jeff
Message no. 2
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Business?
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:33:40 EST
In a message dated 98-03-03 14:57:40 EST, mach@****.caltech.edu writes:

> Since the message is already *****PRIVATE to Faerie, then I don't see the
> reason why the section you encrypted needed to be any more private than
> the rest of it. (As a side note, since I know a little more about the
> character than you do, too much technomantic legendermain may make the
> post quite unreadable for her...but I guess that is up to Jaimie to
> decide.)
>
Okay, I have to ask something on this topic. What about "Topic Trace &
Report"? The information is moving all over the WWW/Net. If a Trace of some
sort was involved at a given LTG or RTG structure, then it -could- find a
given word and bring it down, even if it was encrypted.

Defeating the encryption would be the "opposed test" between the reading
program and the encryption of the file itself.

I have -really- wondered this concerning the "SIGA/Farmer" thread, which is
-really- good work, but has a LOT of openings that both sides seem to be
missing that I find really obvious.

-K
Message no. 3
From: "Mark L. Neidengard" <mneideng@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Business?
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 14:55:51 -0800
According to Ereskanti:
>In a message dated 98-03-03 14:57:40 EST, mach@****.caltech.edu writes:
>
>> Since the message is already *****PRIVATE to Faerie, then I don't see the
>> reason why the section you encrypted needed to be any more private than
>> the rest of it. (As a side note, since I know a little more about the
>> character than you do, too much technomantic legendermain may make the
>> post quite unreadable for her...but I guess that is up to Jaimie to
>> decide.)
>>
>Okay, I have to ask something on this topic. What about "Topic Trace &
>Report"? The information is moving all over the WWW/Net. If a Trace of some
>sort was involved at a given LTG or RTG structure, then it -could- find a
>given word and bring it down, even if it was encrypted.

IF it was at the right place, operational, and IF it could break the
encryption. Both are very big ifs.

>Defeating the encryption would be the "opposed test" between the reading
>program and the encryption of the file itself.

As a baseline. There are further problems about content: how is the program
supposed to know what it's looking for? If it's something like traffic
intended for Shadowland, maybe it could look for "ASCII" text or something,
but what is it supposed to do with a random binary? Gurgle and run home to
mommy, most likely. Of course, FASA makes it much easier to decrypt things
than it is in the real world (just like FASA's guns are in general less lethal)
but even so, the enterprising person can simply layer encryption on top of
encryption to make simple net Agents totally unable to figure out what they're
looking at.

>I have -really- wondered this concerning the "SIGA/Farmer" thread, which is
>-really- good work, but has a LOT of openings that both sides seem to be
>missing that I find really obvious.

Remember: leaving a little program around trying to mine other people's data
is likely to a) have the program squashed and b) have the people come looking
for who launched it, and c) if the people are serious they've already prepared
for such tactics.
--
/!\/!ark /!\!eidengard, CS Grad, VLSI http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~mneideng
"Fairy of sleep, controller of illusions" Operator/Jack-of-all-Trades, CACR
"Control the person for my own purpose." "Don't mess with the Dark
Elves!"
-Pirotess, _Record_of_Lodoss_War_ Shadowrunner and Anime Addict
Message no. 4
From: Jaimie Nicholson <jaimie.nicholson@********.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Business
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 12:38:02 +1300
The encryption/decryption argument: Given the fact that shadowpunk deckers
can hide anything they want in the PRIVATE format and the star is unable to
use any of what passes through shadowland for investigations/convictions,
Shadowtk seems to have things set up so that encryption is more powerful
than decryption, i.e. x dollars/nuyen/research/work/whatever spent on
encryption will result in needing much more than x
dollars/nuyen/research/work/whatever to break that encryption. So if Farmer
and SIGA can apply approximately equal resources, encryption must win.
Message no. 5
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowtk@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Business?
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:55:04 +0000
In message <b4fd8adc.34fc8546@***.com>, Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes
>I have -really- wondered this concerning the "SIGA/Farmer" thread, which is
>-really- good work, but has a LOT of openings that both sides seem to be
>missing that I find really obvious.

PRIVATE: is just that. Private. It can be broken by consent of the
players involved, and for _no_ other reason.

Additional encryption is possible; I'm guilty, for instance. But that's
mere dramatic emphasis, not much more.

As far as the list goes, if a message is PRIVATE: then it does not exist
to anyone except the sender and the recipient, unless the participating
players agree to let someone else intercept it.

Realistic? Maybe not. But a necessity of the list.
Message no. 6
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Business
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 19:35:14 -0500
>The encryption/decryption argument:

I seem to recall a discussion about this back in the old days. I don't
recall the conclusion, but I suspect it came back to what's in the FAQ;
i.e. an encrypted message is considered unbreakable, except when it is
desired by the people running the current storyline to do otherwise. If
Mark and I agree that the next "Draig Un" message will be cracked, then
that's fine, it's part of our hypothetical story. But any old schmoe out
there can't just unilaterally decide to crack encryption, which means your
special codes are nonsense.

It basically means that all those special encryption codes aren't really
needed. If you really believe it adds to the special role-playing you are
doing and adds significant color to the story (which I somehow doubt), I
suppose then go for it. Otherwise, don't do it.

BTW, Mark, how'd you like my re-introduction of Draig Un? Seemed most
appropriate.

Erik J.

Cmyru!!
Message no. 7
From: "Mark L. Neidengard" <mneideng@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Business
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 16:59:42 -0800
According to Erik Jameson:
>>The encryption/decryption argument:
>
>I seem to recall a discussion about this back in the old days. I don't
>recall the conclusion, but I suspect it came back to what's in the FAQ;
>i.e. an encrypted message is considered unbreakable, except when it is
>desired by the people running the current storyline to do otherwise. If
>Mark and I agree that the next "Draig Un" message will be cracked, then
>that's fine, it's part of our hypothetical story. But any old schmoe out
>there can't just unilaterally decide to crack encryption, which means your
>special codes are nonsense.

Well, there's two issues here. On one hand, we as players have decreed that
no listmember's characters can unilaterally break another character's
encryption as a practical matter. That is not to say that the normal
privacy is in fact _unbreakable_ in _game_ terms. It merely means that we
have decided that, for whatever arbitrary reason, the messages _won't_ be
broken. In my view, the purpose of extra encryption and redirection is for
message that are not only protected by list policy, but which would be much
harder to break into _anyway_ inside the game. That is, exploiting the
game mechanics rather than the list's "metamechanics".
--
/!\/!ark /!\!eidengard, CS Grad, VLSI http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~mneideng
"Fairy of sleep, controller of illusions" Operator/Jack-of-all-Trades, CACR
"Control the person for my own purpose." "Don't mess with the Dark
Elves!"
-Pirotess, _Record_of_Lodoss_War_ Shadowrunner and Anime Addict
Message no. 8
From: Mark Imbriaco <perlhacker@*********.NET>
Subject: Re: Business
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 00:30:40 -0500
>BTW, Mark, how'd you like my re-introduction of Draig Un? Seemed most
>appropriate.

I liked it -- I liked the way that plot was heading before you left the
list the first time as well, so it was easy for me to go "Alright!" when
I saw the message from Draig Un. Timing is everything, and it looks like
Paul is going to provide you with all the openings you could hope for to
reintroduce your characters. :-)

-Mark
Message no. 9
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Business
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 12:45:44 -0500
At 12:30 AM 3/4/98 -0500, you wrote:
<nipped> Timing is everything, and it looks like Paul is going to provide
you with all the openings you could hope for to reintroduce your
characters. :-)
>

I can always hope so anyway...got a new character based around the Frank
Black character from the Millennium show I want to try out...Paul just
might give me an opening big enough to sail a battleship through...we'll see!

Erik J.

The Time is near.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Business, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.