Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Fiber optics (was Re: FAB revisited)
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 01:30:03 -0500
On Wed, 13 May 1998 23:37:07 -0400 Paul Gettle <pgettle@********.NET>
writes:
>Wow. A -Workable- solution to the FAB net problem. Now if someone
>could make a decent explanation for unidirectional datalines from
>Neo-A's Guide to Real Life.
<SNIP SIg>
> -- Paul Gettle (pgettle@********.net)
<SNIP more Sig>

How about this ... the lines are fiber optical right? Normally fiber
optics have lasers and receptors at both ends so unidirectional lines
only have lasers on one end and receptors on the other ... sound good?
Or was there some mechanics quirk? I can't remember, my copy of NAGRL is
with a friend ...

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum)

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 2
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Fiber optics (was Re: FAB revisited)
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 17:37:49 +1000
Alfredo B Alves writes:
>>Wow. A -Workable- solution to the FAB net problem. Now if someone
>>could make a decent explanation for unidirectional datalines from
>>Neo-A's Guide to Real Life.


>How about this ... the lines are fiber optical right? Normally fiber

>optics have lasers and receptors at both ends so unidirectional lines
>only have lasers on one end and receptors on the other ... sound good?
>Or was there some mechanics quirk? I can't remember, my copy of NAGRL is
>with a friend ...


Here's the problem: how does your signal get back to you, so you can control
your persona?

What you're describing is something I called _true_ unidirectional lines.
You can send a smart frame up them, but can't travel up yourself (and the
smart frame needs to be able to find an exit to report back, if it needs
to). I described them extensively in a post about 1 week after I got NAGRL
(which was, um, about 2 months after it was released).

I'll dig up the post if you want.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 3
From: Paul Gettle <pgettle@********.NET>
Subject: Fiber Optics [was: Re: FAB Revisited]
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 12:08:40 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 12:27 PM 5/14/98 +0100, Spike wrote:
>Oh, that's simple.
>In fact, having transmit or receive only datalines in electronics is
>INCREDIBLY simple. The only difficulty would be... How to you get in
to see
>them? (Unless the ASIST uses some form of redirection protocol to
maintain
>contact or the datalines are the only routes for the data to go, but
the
>ASIST lines run in parralel, allowing you to see the nodes and
manipulate
>them, but only allows data from/to the node via the data-lines....

Redirection protocol would work, except in cases where the only
dataline to a node is a one-way dataline. (Which happens to be the
first practical example in the section about one-way datalines).

Running a bi-directional 'sideband' line between nodes to allow decker
simsense to travel around a one-way dataline bottleneck is possible,
but it pokes a big security hole into some of the suggested
applications for one-way datalines. Say there were a datastore to be
used as a secure data dump. Data goes in, but it's not supposed to
come back out. A decker gets to the datastore, and finds that since
it's only connected by a one-way dataline, he can't transfer the
needed files back to his deck. Plan B, the decker performs a 'read'
operation in the datastore on the particular file, and the data that
wasn't supposed to get out of the datastore comes down the simsense
pipe to him. (I will grant you that 'read' formats the data into a
form usable by simsense, which means you can't normally save it, but
there are fairly simple ways around that.)

The other difficulty I see by having a parallel line for decker
simsense, it'd be a lot easier to tell if you've got a rogue decker in
your system. If the simsense signals travel the same datalines as the
rest of the data, the decker's signals get hidden in the noise of the
massive datapacket traffic of a normal system.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNVsXA82C0fERRVM5AQF2fAP+PKHzE4aSo2iWeyamLSHx4hkBObuTsI3w
/kYFDtmxDcUfCCmvU/nPIczFDm6A2ddJFZcKp6cYhEaBc1lUtn5EFJ1o2ufVbTfU
kokG4jCk0ycnLV82LuxdQ0U43aobLxgXCrG4/ctFbFcaepODvxWA5ZH+T5bg1u8A
iBjSzRLgpJU=
=agU/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (pgettle@********.net)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:11455339 (RSA 1024, created 97/08/08)
625A FFF0 76DC A077 D21C 556B BB58 00AA
Message no. 4
From: "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: Fiber Optics [was: Re: FAB Revisited]
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 09:19:17 -0700
----------
> From: Paul Gettle <pgettle@********.NET>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Fiber Optics [was: Re: FAB Revisited]
> Date: Thursday, May 14, 1998 9:08 AM
>
>
<snip>
> The other difficulty I see by having a parallel line for decker
> simsense, it'd be a lot easier to tell if you've got a rogue decker in
> your system. If the simsense signals travel the same datalines as the
> rest of the data, the decker's signals get hidden in the noise of the
> massive datapacket traffic of a normal system.

An idea that comes to mind is that rather than having a parallel line for
deckers, why not have nothing? It looks like a normal datapath, and by
performing an analyze operation you can tell that data you're looking for
had been transfered down there, but when you try to actually go there,
simsense just cuts out and a copy of your icon is shunted down the line.
You're still connected though, and can still act, but you are effectively
more than blind. No senses whatsoever. Call it a +16 for any operations
to represent that fact. Kinda like trying to use a stranger's computer
when the monitor and keyboard are broken, and all you can use is the mouse.
You can still act, though. You can still send signals and stuff to where
your icon is at. It just can't send any information back. The major
drawback being that the corporate deckers can tell that you're in the
machine a bit easier, and can just skip over to the SAN and run a trace on
you from there.
Message no. 5
From: Robert Nesius <nesius@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Fiber Optics [was: Re: FAB Revisited]
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 23:06:55 -0700
Hi there,
I'll offer a perspective on how a one-way dataline may work. This might be
too "grounded in reality," but what the heck.

I think one way you could look at one-way dataline is that it's one way
not because of physical restrictions of the medium (the physical layer),
but because of restrictions imposed in higher layers of the protocols that
practically by definition must exist in networking. The protocols
that don't care what the bits they are schlepping around are, because their
job is to just send it on.

Within this context, it is possible to configure nodes on the matrix
responsible for routing and traffic control to not return confirmation
or route information that is not authorized. So the one way data-pipe
is a conceptual construct that is a result of how the matrix is configured
at that particular place. IMHO, jumping into a one way data-pipe
such as this would be like jumping into a sensory deprivation tank.
"Gee, it's nice and dark in here." :) Or, if the decker figured out how
to piggy back his signal on the authorized data stream, perhaps he could
do some damage.

I just don't buy the concept of a truly one-way data-pipe being implemented
in physical layers and used for anything remotely important. One of the
fundamental problems in networking is making sure what was sent was what
was received. At some level, the hardware at the ends of the datapoints
must talk to each other to verify this. If they don't, then the data runs
a risk of being compromised.

In the end, I don't buy the idea of this being implemented in the physical
layer. Perhaps too much reality on part though.

-Rob

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Fiber Optics [was: Re: FAB Revisited], 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.

Thwap!