Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Tim Huie <SPEEDBMP@*******.BITNET>
Subject: matrix
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 18:56:24 +0200
Just a short note.
Vitural Reality is Gods Way of Saying you have to much processer speed.

Speedbump
Message no. 2
From: "Dylan Norhtup (PHY)" <norhtup@*****.CAS.USF.EDU>
Subject: Re: matrix
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 16:32:37 -0400
On Tue, 6 Jul 1993, Tim Huie wrote:

> Just a short note.
> Vitural Reality is Gods Way of Saying you have to much processer speed.
>
> Speedbump

A shorter note.
So is OS/2 or Windows.

Doc X
Message no. 3
From: Matthew Ledgerwood <ledgermw@****.CANTERBURY.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 13:36:43 NZS
Rat Wrote:

>I'm not saying that the Matrix is "wrong", just that given how computers
>work today it can't exist.

This statement is true, and I agree that at this point in time the Matrix can't
exist. But the world of Shadowrun is set 60 years in the future. Look how far
computers have come in the last 60 years. I'm tempted to believe that they could
advance far beyond what they are at the moment.

Although I'd like to add that I prefer the idea that the individual decks deal
with the graphics rather than it just being there for people to interface with.

On a slight tangent...

Can someone tell me what the difference is between the skills Computer and
Computer Theory. If you go by the book the only difference seems to be that
Computer Theory include Matrix Theory and Computer doesn't. The group I play
with has decided that the computer skill should just be decking (or using)
whereas computer theory is programming. Thinking about it at the moment I'm
sure it could go into more detail. Personally I think Shadowrun has simplified
the whole computer/matrix/decking area of the game far too much.

Any thoughts?

Cheers,
Matthew.
Message no. 4
From: Dave The Shade <IZZYUX2@*******.BITNET>
Subject: Matrix
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 00:11:00 PDT
Mike is right. With photonic chips working at light speed, processing trillions
of bits of info a nanosecond, coupled with specialized VR/Object orientated
operating systems - a decks power and speed will be an exponential factor of
what it needs to run even the best/biggest programs --- so why not make comput
-ing intuitive. Act out your thoughts naturally and let the deck interpret that
into programs in memory that it needs to run.
VR, photonic chips, specialized operating and compression systems are a fact of
life already (photonic chips are still theory - but very researched and practic
al theory.) So why not believe that the Matrix/Cyberspace will be a fact of lif
e by 2054. The only hitch is the direct brainfeed hookup -- that,as yet,is
still to be found only in scifi stories.





KHANx
Message no. 5
From: Robert Watkins <bob@******.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 14:10:42 +0930
The main reason I can see people desiring to use VR over a CLI is this: You
have this lovely little attack program, in the shape of a sword (as an
example). Now, in order to change the variables on the program so it actually
has a chance of hurting the IC, you swing it.
If you were dealing with a CLI, you'd have to execute the program with enough
options to fill up a page, at least. Can you see it??
attack -virtual -smash -hurt -highpenetration -alpha5 ...

Get the picture??

The VR ISN'T just a cute means of representing the nodes of a computer, it's a
means of communication. Like in the Hawaiain dances: Every movement has a
meaning.


Also, the SR novels imply strongly that in the Matrix, your response time is
increased, so you can react in milli-seconds. Certainly simsense can generate
this illusion, and the Matrix is, at it's core, simsense.


As for the arguement that modern hacking takes days to months: You've spent
months, perhaps a year or two, writing up your attack progam 10. You'll be
damned if you're going to change it, so you've adopted a brute force approach.
After all, all that IC has the visual elements in common, doesn't it? So
obviously, you've decided to get your program to attack that common aspect.
Now, it can be made more efficent, so you've left a lot of variables to be user
defined (see above).

The corps realize this, of course, so why do they bother making IC visible?
Because if it's not present (and by visual, I mean interfacing with the VR),
it can't effect a decker. QED


Natch, this doesn't stop the smart gm taking things off the Matrix, especially
the security stuff. But think of why it's on the matrix to begin with. Well,
all of those SPU's are proper processers. So they're probably being used for
parallel processing. Take them off, and you reduce your computer power by a
large percentage. Now, small installations probably can't afford this, so they
leave the security sub-processor on the net.


Robert Watkins/Rising Storm`
Message no. 6
From: "Mark D. Fender" <mfender@******.SGCL.LIB.MO.US>
Subject: Matrix
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 08:36:46 -0500
Does anyone else see the Matrix as the most annoying thing in SR? It's
big, ungainly, and doesn't coincide with the rest of the rules. Has
anyone any thoughts on how to fix it? I wrote up a quick fix once, but
never had a chance to playtest it. Mainly, it involved streamlining the
rules so that it would go faster, so that my group could concentrate on
role-playing and not roll-playing. If anyone's interested, I'll post
it. Has anyone else fixed it?

PAX
Mark Fender
Death
Scurge
"Apathy is the glove into which evil slips its hand."--Bodie Thoene
Message no. 7
From: Ingo Rockel <q09877@******.UNI-PADERBORN.DE>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 14:46:07 +0100
I working at a FIX for the Matrix, but I'm not ready yet. :-(
Message no. 8
From: Daniel Kollmer <dkollmer@**.OR.AT>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 18:19:45 +0200
>Does anyone else see the Matrix as the most annoying thing in SR? It's
>big, ungainly, and doesn't coincide with the rest of the rules. Has
>anyone any thoughts on how to fix it? I wrote up a quick fix once, but
>never had a chance to playtest it. Mainly, it involved streamlining the
>rules so that it would go faster, so that my group could concentrate on
>role-playing and not roll-playing. If anyone's interested, I'll post
>it. Has anyone else fixed it?
>
>PAX
>Mark Fender
>Death
>Scurge
>"Apathy is the glove into which evil slips its hand."--Bodie Thoene
>
I also don't like the matrix-mainly for the same reasons as you do.I only
use it as a plot device and dicourage people from playing deckers.Anyway who
needs one if you can get a rigger on-site jack into the sec-terminal and run
the surveillance system.Though i'd love to integrate the matrix in my gaming
and so i would appreciate it if you'd send me your fix,I promise to test it
and send you the results.
Daniel dKollmer@**.or.at
Message no. 9
From: U-Gene <C14101@*******.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 11:18:06 EDT
Mark D. Fender wrote:
<snip -- Mark did a quick rewrite of matrix rules for smoothness>
>If anyone's interested, I'll post it. Has anyone else fixed it?

Unfortunatly, I haven't got a chance to fix it. Since my players rely on
a NPC decker, I haven't been motivated to change them. I usually just make
a *generic* computer roll and tell them what I think the results are. <grin>

At any rate, I'm interested in seeing those rules. If no one else desires
them on the list, send them to me privately. If you don't mind :)

"So, what did he find out." --player
"er..uh, he says he couldn't find anything" --GM

<< U-Gene -- Decker who has no clue on how the Matrix should work >>
Message no. 10
From: Menard Steve <menars@***.UMONTREAL.CA>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 16:26:49 -0400
On Tue, 18 Apr 1995, Mark D. Fender wrote:

> Does anyone else see the Matrix as the most annoying thing in SR? It's
> big, ungainly, and doesn't coincide with the rest of the rules. Has
> anyone any thoughts on how to fix it? I wrote up a quick fix once, but
> never had a chance to playtest it. Mainly, it involved streamlining the
> rules so that it would go faster, so that my group could concentrate on
> role-playing and not roll-playing. If anyone's interested, I'll post
> it. Has anyone else fixed it?

No only do I think it's the worth aspect of SR, I also removed it
from play altogether. Yes the matrix still exists but I ruled that
Deckers could only b NPC because deckers tend to go on adventures of
their own AND/OR be left out of other parts. Removes some good parts from
some adventures, but then those I write have a very low matrix quota!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- |\_/| Still The One and Only Wolfbane! ---
--- |o o| " Hey! Why ya lookin' at me so weird? Ain't ya 'ver seen a ---
--- \ / decker witha horn ?" --- Scy, Troll decker with a CC ---
--- 0 Steve Menard menars@***.UMontreal.Ca ---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 11
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 21:06:04 -0400
On Tue, 18 Apr 1995, Menard Steve wrote:

> No only do I think it's the worth aspect of SR, I also removed it
> from play altogether. Yes the matrix still exists but I ruled that
> Deckers could only b NPC because deckers tend to go on adventures of
> their own AND/OR be left out of other parts. Removes some good parts from
> some adventures, but then those I write have a very low matrix quota!

To me, this removes one of the most interesting and useful
aspects from the campaign. The concept of the decker and the Matrix is
so integral to Shadowrun as a whole that it's a shame to just ditch it
completely.
Also, the more you use the matrix and decking rules, the quicker
they get. If you disqualify something form play just because it's not
fast or group oriented, you also lose the Astral Quest and much of the
individual leg-work that can't make SR so cool.

Marc
Message no. 12
From: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 21:20:10 -0400
On Tue, 18 Apr 1995, Mark D. Fender wrote:

> Has anyone else fixed it?

Lots of people, but IMHO nobody but FASA has ever come up with any
/real/ improvements. The additional rules in VR made it all much more
realistic than SRI, but added much more complication. For SRII, they came
up with a good compromise, but still imperfect.
The best so far is, without question, the method seen in the back
of the module Double Exposure (which we've heard is the same as what
they're planning for VR2 when it comes out.) This is about as realistic
as you can get without program flowcharts or system schematics, and is
still no more complicated than the SRII rules. Not only that, but it has
the potential to run much faster.
Not sure if it /will/ go faster, 'cause we haven't had the chance
to seriously playtest it yet, but the potential is there.

-------------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@****.com> =========-------------
| "When that what now is yet to be has come to pass, |
| thou shalt realize that thy existance 'tis merely another |
| building block upon that edifice which we call reality." |
| --Pink Floyd (paraphrased) |
--------========== http://www.cais.com/jdfalk/home.html ==========--------
Message no. 13
From: Guy Swartwood <gswartwo@*********.WICHITAKS.ATTGIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 12:42:00 PDT
Mark Fender wrote----

>Does anyone else see the Matrix as the most annoying thing in SR? It's
>big, ungainly, and doesn't coincide with the rest of the rules. Has
>anyone any thoughts on how to fix it? I wrote up a quick fix once, but
>never had a chance to playtest it. Mainly, it involved streamlining the
>rules so that it would go faster, so that my group could concentrate on
>role-playing and not roll-playing. If anyone's interested, I'll post
>it. Has anyone else fixed it?

Why do you find it annoying? I find that if the GM is really well versed in
all aspects of SR, then a matrix run does not cause any problems for the
campaign or game session. In VR (or SRII, I can't remember right now) they
have a 'quick matrix' rules, alas I find that they are more annoying than
helpful.

Guy Swartwood corporate decker by day, shadowrunner by night
wildman@******.net
gswartwo@*********.wichitaks.attgis.com
Message no. 14
From: Guy Swartwood <gswartwo@*********.WICHITAKS.ATTGIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 12:45:00 PDT
Daniel dKollmer wrote ----
>
>I also don't like the matrix-mainly for the same reasons as you do.I only
>use it as a plot device and dicourage people from playing deckers.Anyway
who
>needs one if you can get a rigger on-site jack into the sec-terminal and
run
>the surveillance system.Though i'd love to integrate the matrix in my
gaming
>and so i would appreciate it if you'd send me your fix,I promise to test it
>and send you the results.
>Daniel dKollmer@**.or.at

How does the rigger get pass the sec-terminal security? Is it not connected
into the matrix?

Guy Swartwoood corporate decker by day, shadowrunner by night
wildman@******.net
gswartwo@*********.wichitaks.attgis.com
Message no. 15
From: Stefan Struck <struck@******.INFORMATIK.UNI-BONN.DE>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 11:05:17 +0200
Guy wrote:
>
> Why do you find it annoying? I find that if the GM is really well versed in
> all aspects of SR, then a matrix run does not cause any problems for the
> campaign or game session. In VR (or SRII, I can't remember right now) they
> have a 'quick matrix' rules, alas I find that they are more annoying than
> helpful.
>
That's exactly my point of view. It's only annoying if the GM and
player don't know what to do and are spending their time looking
for rules in the books. Practice is the main word here. Don't you
remember the first sessions where nobody knew the exact rules?
Melee combat was annoying, too. I'm playing lots of one-on-one
games with my decker characters so they (and me too) knows the
rules by the book. Where using (and testing) the new rules taken
from Divided Assets to speed the game a little bit up, but my
character said to me, he likes the old rules more.
It helps a lot when the other characters know the rules, too, so they
know what the heck the decker is doing again. He has a hitcher jack
and vid screens on his deck, therefor everybody is able to give
comments during the decking.
Oh, before I forget it: my group is very small, max. of 4 players.
Thinking of it the decker-annoy factor may increase with number
of players.
bye,
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: struck@****.informatik.uni-bonn.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 16
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 11:20:58 +0200
>Does anyone else see the Matrix as the most annoying thing in SR?

Definitely. That's why I was happy when our decker got shot up too bad to
continue running the shadows :)

>It's big, ungainly, and doesn't coincide with the rest of the rules. Has
>anyone any thoughts on how to fix it?

I was playing once with the idea of totally rewriting the matrix rules, but
never got the inspiration I was waiting for (you know: that "Yes! That'll
fix it!" idea).

>I wrote up a quick fix once, but never had a chance to playtest it.

Post it here, if you don't mind...


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Boodschap Van Algemeen Nut
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 17
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 11:21:18 +0200
>Unfortunatly, I haven't got a chance to fix it. Since my players rely on
>a NPC decker, I haven't been motivated to change them. I usually just make
>a *generic* computer roll and tell them what I think the results are. <grin>

That's the best trick I've seen to make the matrix more playable. No PC
deckers, but a few decker contacts, and the players saying "We'll call
<contact> and ask if he's got info on <subject>." Then I just tell them
to
make an Etiquette roll and have them called back in a few hours with or
without useful info.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Boodschap Van Algemeen Nut
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 18
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 19:15:25 +0930
Mark D. Fender wrote:
> Does anyone else see the Matrix as the most annoying thing in SR? It's
> big, ungainly, and doesn't coincide with the rest of the rules. Has
> anyone any thoughts on how to fix it? I wrote up a quick fix once, but
> never had a chance to playtest it. Mainly, it involved streamlining the
> rules so that it would go faster, so that my group could concentrate on
> role-playing and not roll-playing. If anyone's interested, I'll post
> it. Has anyone else fixed it?

For a FASA sponsored "fix" to Matrix rules, get a hold of "Divided
Assests".

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Finger me for my geek code
Message no. 19
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 19:31:53 +0930
J.D. Falk wrote:
> The best so far is, without question, the method seen in the back
> of the module Double Exposure (which we've heard is the same as what
> they're planning for VR2 when it comes out.) This is about as realistic
> as you can get without program flowcharts or system schematics, and is
> still no more complicated than the SRII rules. Not only that, but it has
> the potential to run much faster.

What I like about it is that you can breeze through the outer layers of the
system without spending lots of time wandering around between SANs, and
then revert to the detailed maps if you want when you get where you're
going. Even then, you can handle travelling between nodes with the new
rules if you want (great if there's no alarm, or anything).

Not to mention the random Matrices you occasionally need become so much
easier.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Finger me for my geek code
Message no. 20
From: Daniel Kollmer <dkollmer@**.OR.AT>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 16:38:39 +0200
>
>How does the rigger get pass the sec-terminal security? Is it not connected
>into the matrix?
>
>Guy Swartwoood corporate decker by day, shadowrunner by night
>wildman@******.net
>gswartwo@*********.wichitaks.attgis.com
>
>That's an easy one.If you manage to get a rigger past the outer
perimeter,s/he can log into a sec-terminal.The rigger would have to overcome
the password routines,computer skill should do that,and then check out the
system.The rigger can control the security system just like any other
regulative system(such as the controls of a vehicle).The cameras become the
riggers eyes,the motion detectors his tactile sense and so on.In the first
part of the Secrets of Power trilogy the elven runner hart has a rigger
associate who works like this.That gave me the idea.
Message no. 21
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 00:15:21 +1000
Mark D. Fender writes:

> [Matrix gripe]

While I do agree that the matrix rules pretty much suck, and that the matrix
gets to be a hassle and a drag, I don't really think it is the most annoying
thing in SR. Myself I use NPC deckers (so much better to control the
storyline with, and so much easier and simpler to run). But as Marc said, if
you tried to learn the rules with enough effort, and your player(s) did too,
then things would probably flow quite OK after a while. Especially if you
used the Divided Assets rules (even to me, who uses the matrix little, they
seem a lot simpler, and they've received good raves from those who've tried
them). But, fortunately for me, none of my players have the slightest
interest in becomming deckers, it's rare enough for any of them to want to
play a rigger, let alone a decker, so I'll not likely have need in the
forseeable future to expend all the effort to learn the matrix rules. (Gee,
isn't it nice to have players just as lazy as you are :-))

----------------------
Daniel Kollmer writes:

> That's an easy one.If you manage to get a rigger past the outer
> perimeter,s/he can log into a sec-terminal.The rigger would have to overcome
> the password routines,computer skill should do that,and then check out the
> system.The rigger can control the security system just like any other
> regulative system(such as the controls of a vehicle).The cameras become the
> riggers eyes,the motion detectors his tactile sense and so on.In the first
> part of the Secrets of Power trilogy the elven runner hart has a rigger
> associate who works like this.That gave me the idea.

That's assuming, of course, that the particular building runs rigger
security. Not all do. It'll be quite a bummer for the rigger who plans to
take over the system when he dicovers it is a pure matrix run affair <evil
GM grin>.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 22
From: "Mark D. Fender" <mfender@******.SGCL.LIB.MO.US>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 11:46:48 -0500
On Wed, 19 Apr 1995, Daniel Kollmer wrote:

> >
> >How does the rigger get pass the sec-terminal security? Is it not connected
> >into the matrix?
> >
> >Guy Swartwoood corporate decker by day, shadowrunner by night
> >wildman@******.net
> >gswartwo@*********.wichitaks.attgis.com
> >
> >That's an easy one.If you manage to get a rigger past the outer
> perimeter,s/he can log into a sec-terminal.The rigger would have to overcome
> the password routines,computer skill should do that,and then check out the
> system.The rigger can control the security system just like any other
> regulative system(such as the controls of a vehicle).The cameras become the
> riggers eyes,the motion detectors his tactile sense and so on.In the first
> part of the Secrets of Power trilogy the elven runner hart has a rigger
> associate who works like this.That gave me the idea.
>
Correction. Computer skill does not cover sliding past password
routines. Computer skill covers programming computers. Sure, with
Computer skill you can prgram a program that would guess at passwords or
even scramble passwords. But, do you have all day to sit at a
sec-terminal waiting for the computer to figure out the password? That's
how long it would take.

PAX
Mark Fender
Death
Scurge
"Money talks-but credit has an echo."--Bob Thaves
Message no. 23
From: Guy Swartwood <gswartwo@*********.WICHITAKS.ATTGIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 08:08:00 PDT
Stefan wrote ----

>That's exactly my point of view. It's only annoying if the GM and
>player don't know what to do and are spending their time looking
>for rules in the books. Practice is the main word here. Don't you
>remember the first sessions where nobody knew the exact rules?
>Melee combat was annoying, too. I'm playing lots of one-on-one
>games with my decker characters so they (and me too) knows the
>rules by the book. Where using (and testing) the new rules taken
>from Divided Assets to speed the game a little bit up, but my
>character said to me, he likes the old rules more.
>It helps a lot when the other characters know the rules, too, so they
>know what the heck the decker is doing again. He has a hitcher jack
>and vid screens on his deck, therefor everybody is able to give
>comments during the decking.
>Oh, before I forget it: my group is very small, max. of 4 players.
>Thinking of it the decker-annoy factor may increase with number
>of players.
But is it the matix aspect of the game at fault or the GM/Players?
Alas, to each his own. You have a problem with the Matrix aspect, I
understand that because I have the same problem with Astral Quests and such.
I found that the new rules in VR to be very complicated at first (which is
why it is optional to use them, BTW) but over some practice it did get
simplified.

Guy Swartwood corporate decker by day, shadowrunner by night
wildman@******.net
gswartwo@*********.wichitaks.attgis.com
Message no. 24
From: Neil Smith <NSMITH@***.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 10:15:24 GMT
I don't suppose that anyone can post a summary of the Divided Assets
matrix rules, so that we can all playtest it?

Neil.
Message no. 25
From: Guy Swartwood <gswartwo@*********.WICHITAKS.ATTGIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 13:10:00 PDT
Mark Fender wrote ---
>Correction. Computer skill does not cover sliding past password
>routines. Computer skill covers programming computers. Sure, with
I believe that the computer skill covers more than just programming...It
also covers understanding of how one works and using unfamiliar computer
systems.

Guy Swartwood corporate decker by day, shadowrunner by night
wildman@******.net
gswartwo@*********.wichitaks.attgis.com
Message no. 26
From: "Mark D. Fender" <mfender@******.SGCL.LIB.MO.US>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 12:17:26 -0500
On Wed, 19 Apr 1995, Guy Swartwood wrote:

> Mark Fender wrote ---
> >Correction. Computer skill does not cover sliding past password
> >routines. Computer skill covers programming computers. Sure, with
> I believe that the computer skill covers more than just programming...It
> also covers understanding of how one works and using unfamiliar computer
> systems.
>

>
Well, I agree. But how does that help you randomly guess at a password?
Using my current computer skill, I could telenet to your address and
guess at your password all day and I couldn't guess it(Not that I would,
it's just an example. I have my own address thank you very much).
Password guessing is social engineering, plain and simple. The only
possible use of computer skill to guess a password, would be to write a
program that would lodge in their system and record passwords used, or
creat a ramdom gueeser. Either one, would require running some IC, not a
rigger jacking in, as the original post was about.
Message no. 27
From: Marek Telgarsky <mtelgars@**.NMSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 12:14:16 -0600
>>>>> " " == Mark D Fender <mfender@******.SGCL.LIB.MO.US>
writes:

> Well, I agree. But how does that help you randomly guess at a password?
> Using my current computer skill, I could telenet to your address and
> guess at your password all day and I couldn't guess it(Not that I would,
> it's just an example. I have my own address thank you very much).
> Password guessing is social engineering, plain and simple. The only
> possible use of computer skill to guess a password, would be to write a
> program that would lodge in their system and record passwords used, or
> creat a ramdom gueeser. Either one, would require running some IC, not a
> rigger jacking in, as the original post was about.

false.
All you need is a hole in a system to send you back the password file,
and then you run a dictionary/wordsearch type scan on the system. Once
youre on the system there are several things you can do, but I would
rather not discuss it (as i dont know many, and I doubt that it is
appropriate). At any rate, that is how some hacking is done.. as I
dont do it, I dont know all the particulars, but some info trickles
down even to dumbasses like me. :)

The matrix is actually a fair description of what really happens, if
you think of the matrix representation as a *REALLY* high level of
whats really happening. :)

-- Alazar #linux on IRC
-- SCF Admin marek@***.nmsu.edu
-- CS Computer Operations Group mtelgars@**.nmsu.edu
Message no. 28
From: Guy Swartwood <gswartwo@*********.WICHITAKS.ATTGIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 13:31:00 PDT
>Well, I agree. But how does that help you randomly guess at a password?
>Using my current computer skill, I could telenet to your address and
>guess at your password all day and I couldn't guess it(Not that I would,
>it's just an example. I have my own address thank you very much).
>Password guessing is social engineering, plain and simple. The only
>possible use of computer skill to guess a password, would be to write a
>program that would lodge in their system and record passwords used, or
>creat a ramdom gueeser. Either one, would require running some IC, not a
>rigger jacking in, as the original post was about.

(ps , could you please include your name so I can follow this group's net
equiette?)
I agree with you there.

Guy Swartwood
Message no. 29
From: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 00:26:00 -0400
On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Guy Swartwood wrote:

> (ps , could you please include your name so I can follow this group's net
> equiette?)
> I agree with you there.

Part of the global netiquette standards to which this group
subscribes is antipathy towards "me too" postings, which are exemplified
by the situation where somebody will quote an extremely long message and
only add the words "me too" and the end.
This is actually much more important than correctly attributing
quoted message, as attribution is in almost all cases a function of your
mailreader and not something which must be done by hand. For information
on better mailreaders accessable at your site, contact your system
administrator or support staff.

-------------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@****.com> =========-------------
| "That wanker Claudius. He poured fucking poison in my fucking ear!" |
| -The Skinhead Hamlet, Act I, Scene IV |
--------========== http://www.cais.com/jdfalk/home.html ==========--------
Message no. 30
From: Daniel Kollmer <dkollmer@**.OR.AT>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 15:58:19 +0200
>>Well, I agree. But how does that help you randomly guess at a password?
>>Using my current computer skill, I could telenet to your address and
>>guess at your password all day and I couldn't guess it(Not that I would,
>>it's just an example. I have my own address thank you very much).
>>Password guessing is social engineering, plain and simple. The only
>>possible use of computer skill to guess a password, would be to write a
>>program that would lodge in their system and record passwords used, or
>>creat a ramdom gueeser. Either one, would require running some IC, not a
>>rigger jacking in, as the original post was about.
>
>(ps , could you please include your name so I can follow this group's net
>equiette?)
>I agree with you there.
>
>Guy Swartwood
>
>A rigger jacking in would have to know the security password,or he would
have to log into a system currently in use.Let's say some runners infiltrate
a security-control-centre.If the guards aint fast enough to shut the system
down,it is still engaged,and there would be no problem to log into the
system.Anyway,there are devices which can do codebreaking,like the maglock
passkey.
Message no. 31
From: "Mark D. Fender" <mfender@******.SGCL.LIB.MO.US>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 14:01:18 -0500
On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Marek Telgarsky wrote:

> >>>>> " " == Mark D Fender
<mfender@******.SGCL.LIB.MO.US> writes:
>
> > Well, I agree. But how does that help you randomly guess at a password?
> > Using my current computer skill, I could telenet to your address and
> > guess at your password all day and I couldn't guess it(Not that I would,
> > it's just an example. I have my own address thank you very much).
> > Password guessing is social engineering, plain and simple. The only
> > possible use of computer skill to guess a password, would be to write a
> > program that would lodge in their system and record passwords used, or
> > creat a ramdom gueeser. Either one, would require running some IC, not a
> > rigger jacking in, as the original post was about.
>
> false.
> All you need is a hole in a system to send you back the password file,
> and then you run a dictionary/wordsearch type scan on the system. Once
> youre on the system there are several things you can do, but I would
> rather not discuss it (as i dont know many, and I doubt that it is
> appropriate). At any rate, that is how some hacking is done.. as I
> dont do it, I dont know all the particulars, but some info trickles
> down even to dumbasses like me. :)
>
> The matrix is actually a fair description of what really happens, if
> you think of the matrix representation as a *REALLY* high level of
> whats really happening. :)
Once again, correct, but how do you find a hole into the system without a
password? Catch-22. If you happen to know a hole through good
role-playing then go for it. If not, back to square one.

PAX
Mark Fender
Death
Scurge
"When something important is going on, silence is a lie."--A.M. Rosenthal
Message no. 32
From: "Mark D. Fender" <mfender@******.SGCL.LIB.MO.US>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 15:38:53 -0500
On Fri, 21 Apr 1995, Daniel Kollmer wrote:

> >>Well, I agree. But how does that help you randomly guess at a password?
> >>Using my current computer skill, I could telenet to your address and
> >>guess at your password all day and I couldn't guess it(Not that I would,
> >>it's just an example. I have my own address thank you very much).
> >>Password guessing is social engineering, plain and simple. The only
> >>possible use of computer skill to guess a password, would be to write a
> >>program that would lodge in their system and record passwords used, or
> >>creat a ramdom gueeser. Either one, would require running some IC, not a
> >>rigger jacking in, as the original post was about.
> >
> >(ps , could you please include your name so I can follow this group's net
> >equiette?)
> >I agree with you there.
> >
> >Guy Swartwood
> >
> >A rigger jacking in would have to know the security password,or he would
> have to log into a system currently in use.Let's say some runners infiltrate
> a security-control-centre.If the guards aint fast enough to shut the system
> down,it is still engaged,and there would be no problem to log into the
> system.Anyway,there are devices which can do codebreaking,like the maglock
> passkey.
>
No, no, no ,no no. A maglock passkey gets you pass physical locks. Not
Matrix ones. I'd say go on the first idea, though. Seems to work.

PAX
Mark Fender
Death
Scurge
"When something important is going on, silence is a lie."--A.M. Rosenthal
Message no. 33
From: Gary Carroll <gary@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 14:41:37 -0700
>On Fri, 21 Apr 1995, Daniel Kollmer wrote:
>
>> >>Well, I agree. But how does that help you randomly guess at a
password?
>> >>Using my current computer skill, I could telenet to your address and
>> >>guess at your password all day and I couldn't guess it(Not
that I would,
>> >>it's just an example. I have my own address thank you very much).
>> >>Password guessing is social engineering, plain and simple. The only
>> >>possible use of computer skill to guess a password, would be
to write a
>> >>program that would lodge in their system and record passwords
used, or
>> >>creat a ramdom gueeser. Either one, would require running
some IC, not a
>> >>rigger jacking in, as the original post was about.
>
>>>Guy Swartwood wrote
>> >
>> >A rigger jacking in would have to know the security password,or
he would
>> have to log into a system currently in use.Let's say some
runners infiltrate
>> a security-control-centre.If the guards aint fast enough to shut
the system
>> down,it is still engaged,and there would be no problem to log into the
>> system.Anyway,there are devices which can do codebreaking,like
the maglock
>> passkey.
>>
>Mark Fender wrote
>
>No, no, no ,no no. A maglock passkey gets you pass physical locks. Not
>Matrix ones. I'd say go on the first idea, though. Seems to work.
>

And what do you really think that you couldn't break into a system
that requires a
password...
I usually make them carry aprox. five figures of computer equip.
(depending on the job.) (since SRII does not have misc equip "like
in sneakers"). Then I make them use a Computer and Electronics
skill test (electronics for hardware setup and computer for proper
connections) (or computer at +2 and computer).
The Idea is that you bring in your own mini terminal
remove/disconnect the existing one and use your presetup hardware to
bypass the OS interface. Then you set modifiers according to how
good the eq is, modifiers if the system is not familiar, and the
number of successes can be used for jumping past other detections or
time etc...

If you actually think that you are going to just try to figure out
the password - your still living in the 1990's.
*these comments do not represent any of the corporate views*

Thanks
Gary Carroll
Message no. 34
From: Marek Telgarsky <mtelgars@**.NMSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 18:55:16 -0600
>>>>> " " == Mark D Fender <mfender@******.SGCL.LIB.MO.US>
writes:
> Once again, correct, but how do you find a hole into the system without a
> password? Catch-22. If you happen to know a hole through good
> role-playing then go for it. If not, back to square one.

check out satan, the system security tool. that will give you a clue
as far as what types of remote detection can occur. And its not a
catch-22. But I am out of my league. I have never hacked a machine,
and I will probably never hack one that does not belong to me. If
someone else wants to elaborate, then please do.

-- Alazar@#linux.linuxnet.IRC #include <std_disclaimer.h>
-- SCF Admin marek@***.nmsu.edu
-- CS Computer Operations Group mtelgars@**.nmsu.edu
Message no. 35
From: Jettero Heller <heller@*****.CBA.CSUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 21:45:41 -0400
> >>>>> " " == Mark D Fender
<mfender@******.SGCL.LIB.MO.US> writes:
> > Once again, correct, but how do you find a hole into the system without a
> > password? Catch-22. If you happen to know a hole through good

> catch-22. But I am out of my league. I have never hacked a machine,
> and I will probably never hack one that does not belong to me. If
> someone else wants to elaborate, then please do.

This sounds much like an invitation. . .so here goes.
There are a number of ways to connect to a computer and have it execute
a process with out ever knowing a password on it. As a few examples
are: sending mail (the receiving machine must execute something to
receive mail), finger (the machine you finger executes a program to
give you the output you want), ftp, rlogin and a host of other "UNIX"
utilities. Utilities that exist on virtually every machine on the
internet. Now, some of the programs have bugs in them that cause
people to be able to access the machine with out a password.
Quick Internet history lesson, 1988 a guy named Robert Morris released
the "internet worm". It broke into many many computers on the internet
all by itself. One of the attacks it used was the 'fingerd' attack,
essentially what it did was feed the finger daemon (the program running
on a computer to which it didn't have a password) some bogus input
that made it execute the command he wanted it to. If that command
happens to be the one that changes the superusers password to
nothing then not only has he found a hole into a system, but he's
also obtained very high level access.
Now don't think that since that was "way back in '88" that it won't
happen again because we learned better. There was just a report of
a remarkably similar bug in a piece of software that almost everyone
had running. . .

** Heller
Message no. 36
From: Guy Swartwood <gswartwo@*********.WICHITAKS.ATTGIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 11:02:00 PDT
>A rigger jacking in would have to know the security password,or he would
>have to log into a system currently in use.Let's say some runners
infiltrate
>a security-control-centre.If the guards aint fast enough to shut the system
>down,it is still engaged,and there would be no problem to log into the
>system.Anyway,there are devices which can do codebreaking,like the maglock
>passkey.
Assuming that the terminal has a maglock device on it. All the ones I ever
seen part of the matrix (deckers controlling the security) and a rigger
isn't going to get past that with a computer skill unless he is part decker
(with a deck and programs). If the rigger does try to do it on the fly,
chances are that he will mess something up and trigger an alert which could
shut down the system anyways.

Guy Swartwood corporate decker by day, shadowrunner by night
wildman@******.net
gswartwo@*********.wichitaks.attgis.com
Message no. 37
From: "Mark D. Fender" <mfender@******.SGCL.LIB.MO.US>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 21:13:44 -0500
On Fri, 21 Apr 1995, Gary Carroll wrote:

>
> And what do you really think that you couldn't break into a system
> that requires a
> password...
> I usually make them carry aprox. five figures of computer equip.
> (depending on the job.) (since SRII does not have misc equip "like
> in sneakers"). Then I make them use a Computer and Electronics
> skill test (electronics for hardware setup and computer for proper
> connections) (or computer at +2 and computer).
> The Idea is that you bring in your own mini terminal
> remove/disconnect the existing one and use your presetup hardware to
> bypass the OS interface. Then you set modifiers according to how
> good the eq is, modifiers if the system is not familiar, and the
> number of successes can be used for jumping past other detections or
> time etc...
>
> If you actually think that you are going to just try to figure out
> the password - your still living in the 1990's.
> *these comments do not represent any of the corporate views*
>
> Thanks
> Gary Carroll
>
Excellent. That's what I've been trying to say all along, except my
fingers don't translate what my mind says (mayber if I had a full
cybernetic interface...)

PAX
Mark Fender
Death
Scurge
"When something important is going on, silence is a lie."--A.M. Roenthal
Message no. 38
From: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 23:35:26 -0400
On Fri, 21 Apr 1995, Mark D. Fender wrote:

> Once again, correct, but how do you find a hole into the system without a
> password? Catch-22. If you happen to know a hole through good
> role-playing then go for it. If not, back to square one.

You can do FTP to many systems without using a password, right?
If the sysadmin didn't install FTP correctly, it's actually quite easy to
steal the /etc/passwd file (or so I've been told -- AFAIK there are no
such sites left on the 'net.) Same goes for poorly-installed Gopher or
HTTP (World Wide Web) daemons.
Also, some old versions of sendmail (the program which actually
talks to other systems for sending or receipt of EMail messages) could be
convinced to send /etc/passwd or other important files.
And just recently, a program called SATAN was released on the
'net, which was intended to spot and report such security holes -- and it
ended up being a security hole, itself! (I'm not sure what the details
are; as you can guess, it's being kept sorta quiet for now.)
So you see, there are /always/ security holes one can pass
through, so long as the system is connected to the public -- be it the
Internet today, or the Matrix in sixty-one years.

Disclaimer: I will not be held responsible if the information
contained in this message is used for illegal or immoral purposes.

Note: It is generally considered to be common knowledge among
sysadmins and sysadmin wanna-be's such as myself. *grin*

-------------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@****.com> =========-------------
| "It involves such a marked departure from normal human conduct |
| that we can't help being drawn to it." -Edward L. Greenspan |
--------========== http://www.cais.com/jdfalk/home.html ==========--------
Message no. 39
From: Jason Larke <jlarke@*****.LSA.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 02:30:52 -0400
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Apr 1995 23:35:26 EDT, "J.D. Falk"
>>>>> <jdfalk@****.COM> said:

JDF> So you see, there are /always/ security holes one can
JDF> pass through, so long as the system is connected to the
JDF> public -- be it the Internet today, or the Matrix in
JDF> sixty-one years.

Yep. I'm a UNIX admin and I just had a meeting today on
system security, so I had to throw my hat in. :) Without
getting too techy, I think it's safe to say that nobody will
ever be able to truly secure a system from network attack
simply by reengineering that system. Let's look at why this
is tricky...

1) Passwords. People need to have short, easy to remember
passwords in order to use computer conveniently. By no
great coincidence, these are also the easiest passwords
to guess. Some sites force users to pick hard-to-guess
passwords by testing them against cracker dictionaries,
which leads the users for do things like writing the
password down or programming it into their comm
program. There isn't any foolproof way to convince
someone to pick a hard password. Any system using
passwords, with over about 10 users, is likely to have
one user with a lame password. Some variation of this
principle will probably always hold true.

Solution: One-time pads that force people to provide a
uniqne and unguessable key each time they login.

ObSR: Getting hold of a key-pad or key generator is
therefore a great hook for a run.

2) Nobody has the source code and the time to analyze it for
every service on their network. And even if you did, who
says you wouldn't miss something?

Solution: People increasingly try to put their systems
behind firewalls or behind filters to stop outside
computer access. Crackers respond by faking their own
network addresses. Sysadmins turn on filtering at the
router level so the faked packets are junked. Result: To
do this right, you have to get onto the physical net to
get to the system.

ObSR: Getting physical access to an internal net is a great
adventure hook.

One final note: All the above security measures are a pain
in the ass, at some level, to legitimate users of the
system. Most institudations end up with a layered approach,
so that anyone can try a connection to some machines, and
only people who have already got access to trusted machines
can get at the really hardcore ones.

If you want to base decking on the real issues in system
security, you have to bear in mind the nature of the system
your people are going after. What is it used for, how many
people need to use it and how often, how reasonable is it to
limit the access to certain physical areas, how many
admin-hours are spent keeping it secure.

In my mind, it's reasonable to a good decker to be able to
run roughshod over certain parts of the phone company. They
can't exactly limit access, and the sheer size of their
operation limits what they can do to keep things secure. But
remember that their billing records are not on the same
system that routes calls...

And it's likely that only a handful of protected terminals
can access that billing database, that a decker is on call,
that logins are cross-referenced against the authorized
user's work schedules, etc. A system like that, even if you
did gain access without setting off an internal alarm, the
system would notice you were there when you ought not have
been and paged security.

This is all simplified and a little distored, but so are the
SR decking rules. But cracking will be possible as long as
we have computers, just like we will have B&E as long as we
have houses.

Jason Larke- jlarke@*****.edu- sysadmin, philosophy guy, and Rush fan
"I drink the blood of my enemies," Hawk said, and smiled his happy grin."
I don't speak for ITD-LSA, U-M, or the international communist conspiracy.
Send mail for PGP public key.
Message no. 40
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 17:08:51 +0930
J.D. Falk wrote:
> Disclaimer: I will not be held responsible if the information
> contained in this message is used for illegal or immoral purposes.
>
> Note: It is generally considered to be common knowledge among
> sysadmins and sysadmin wanna-be's such as myself. *grin*
>

Exactly... there's a large pool of people who, if they were transported
back, say, five years, crack into almost any system, using bugs in software
to do so. There's a moderately large group of people (the cracking
community) who stay current on such bugs. And any competent sysadmin will
know LOTS of ways to crack systems, simply because they have to fix the
holes.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 41
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 17:03:30 +0930
Gary Carroll wrote:

> And what do you really think that you couldn't break into a system
> that requires a
> password...
> I usually make them carry aprox. five figures of computer equip.
> (depending on the job.) (since SRII does not have misc equip "like
> in sneakers"). Then I make them use a Computer and Electronics
> skill test (electronics for hardware setup and computer for proper
> connections) (or computer at +2 and computer).
> The Idea is that you bring in your own mini terminal
> remove/disconnect the existing one and use your presetup hardware to
> bypass the OS interface. Then you set modifiers according to how
> good the eq is, modifiers if the system is not familiar, and the
> number of successes can be used for jumping past other detections or
> time etc...

Say what? Bypass the OS interface? HOW?!?

Let's assume the world becomes moderately sane, and something like the OSI
interface stack comes into play (TCP/IP has an interface stack as well,
it's just a different one, working under different rules).

Level 3 (usually something like the OS) won't listen to something from
level 1 (the wires), unless it goes by level 2 (the comms protocol). This
kind of thing happens all the way up and down the stack. Skip a step, and
you don't get anywhere.

So, you ignore the OS entirely, and try to talk directly to the hardware on
the other end of the line. No can do... this stuff works in reverse, as
well. Not to mention removing the existing terminal would probably set off
all sorts of alarms.

No, the simplest way is for the decker to jack in, break down the IC, and
then jack out and give it to the rigger. Or have a decker/rigger.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 42
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 16:52:27 +0930
Mark D. Fender wrote:
> >
> > false.
> > All you need is a hole in a system to send you back the password file,
> > and then you run a dictionary/wordsearch type scan on the system. Once
> > youre on the system there are several things you can do, but I would
> > rather not discuss it (as i dont know many, and I doubt that it is
> > appropriate). At any rate, that is how some hacking is done.. as I
> > dont do it, I dont know all the particulars, but some info trickles
> > down even to dumbasses like me. :)

Assuming, of course, the password file is accessible to you. (Ever heard of
shadowing the password file?)

> > The matrix is actually a fair description of what really happens, if
> > you think of the matrix representation as a *REALLY* high level of
> > whats really happening. :)
> Once again, correct, but how do you find a hole into the system without a
> password? Catch-22. If you happen to know a hole through good
> role-playing then go for it. If not, back to square one.

Hmm... I've just finished three days at a conference/workshop on Internet
(well, UNIX) security. Didn't learn any new holes (not what it was about),
but the ramifications of them were explained more, from the sysadmin point
of view. Suffice it to say that if you know what you are doing (ie, have a
good computer skill), you can get in. But it's not likely to be via a brute
force approach. This will take forever, and be detectable. Heck, cracking
passwords isn't even the best way to get in. Many exploited security holes
don't use passwords.

(No, this wasn't a hacking workshop. We looked at sysadmin tools to secure
systems, and that needed explanation of what they were securing against.)

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 43
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 12:40:55 +0200
>a rigger
>isn't going to get past that with a computer skill unless he is part decker
>(with a deck and programs).

All you need to convert a rigger into a decker is some cash to buy a
cyberdeck and some karma to get Computer skill. Maybe you could even do it
with only cash, by buying a Computer skill chip?
Anyway, I know what the next purchase for my rigger will be...


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Sanity is contagious
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 44
From: Shadowdancer <BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 14:57:09 EST
J.D. Falk writes:

> And just recently, a program called SATAN was released on the
> 'net, which was intended to spot and report such security holes --
and it
> ended up being a security hole, itself! (I'm not sure what the details
> are; as you can guess, it's being kept sorta quiet for now.)

Speaking of which, if any ADMINISTRATORS or wanna-be's wish to
own this fine piece of programming, it can be gotten at
HTTP://FISH.COM/DAN.HTML. Warning: It is a Unix program for Unix
systems. Unless you can reprogram it, it will never be "officially"
released in Dos format.

> Disclaimer: I will not be held responsible if the information
> contained in this message is used for illegal or immoral purposes.
>

Ditto.

> Note: It is generally considered to be common knowledge
among
> sysadmins and sysadmin wanna-be's such as myself. *grin*

Ditto.
Message no. 45
From: Jeff Norrell <norrell@*******.ME.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 15:12:04 +0600
For those who might be curious as to the 'hole' that was in Satan... A Trojan was placed
in the source code for Satan in protest of it's potential uses.

The programmer of Satan apparently left his terminal one day without logging out and one
of his coworkers wrote a little Trojan that would create a fictitious user's account.

I have an ftp address for all of this somewhere. A revised version of Satan is available,
as well as the source code for the Trojan.

Jeff


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jeff Norrell It's not grad school....
(norrell@*******.me.utexas.edu) It's an experiment in sleep
University of Texas at Austin deprivation and malnutrition...
MAD Lab
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Message no. 46
From: Shadowdancer <BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 15:10:44 EST
> check out satan, the system security tool. that will give you a clue

See previous post.

> as far as what types of remote detection can occur. And its not a
> catch-22. But I am out of my league. I have never hacked a
machine,

Depending on the type of machine. In my experiance, Unix is so far
the easiest to break (then again, I have not ran a Firewall yet <BG>)
As for password guessing, as a friend likes to tell me, do not wonder
on the stupidity of your fellow man, count on it. A good dictionary
program re-wired to check frequently used words and names, will
crack almost any password within hours (machine-dependent). So far,
alpha-numaric passwords are the most secure, and its security is
shrinking daily.

By-the-by, some new measures have been released. Seems to
require a passcard as well as a password. But it is fairly recent (at
least a newer model) so many corps will not have it.

The above info is for Shadowrun use only. (Like I can garenntee that).
It is not intended for illegal use. (Note: I left out immoral).
It is not copyrighted.
It can be found on many 'Net sites.
I will quit writing before I get myself in trouble.


(Clinton could be reading this. If so, he prolly will not understand it.)


(The world continues to deteriorate. Give up.)

> and I will probably never hack one that does not belong to me. If
> someone else wants to elaborate, then please do.
>
> -- Alazar@#linux.linuxnet.IRC #include <std_disclaimer.h>
> -- SCF Admin marek@***.nmsu.edu
> -- CS Computer Operations Group mtelgars@**.nmsu.edu
>
Message no. 47
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Matrix
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 12:39:19 +0930
Shadowdancer wrote:
> Speaking of which, if any ADMINISTRATORS or wanna-be's wish to
> own this fine piece of programming, it can be gotten at
> HTTP://FISH.COM/DAN.HTML. Warning: It is a Unix program for Unix
> systems. Unless you can reprogram it, it will never be "officially"
> released in Dos format.

Actually, it's a _perl_ program, for Unix systems. Why the distinction?
Because the biggest claim to (in)fame that SATAN has is it's ability to be
used remotely... from any site with a full perl interpreter and a HTML
viewer.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 48
From: Paolo Marcucci <paolo@*********.IT>
Subject: matrix?
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 13:03:50 +0100
Maybe the problem is *how* FASA calls the vaiours matrix components. I agree
that a system (in 205x!) cannot have a single cpu, but let's see at it as a
main process, located somewhere on the computer network. SPUs can be either
different computers or different process, Datastores are directories, with
restricted access, I/O ports are like unix ports, with processes attached to
them that control doors, guns, etc... and so on.

Anyone wants to further elaborate this?

Bye, Paolo
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paolo Marcucci paolo@*********.it
InterWare Service Provider http://www.interware.it/users/paolo
Trieste, Italy
Ph. +39-40-774488
------------------------------------------------------------------
Home of The Shadowrun Archive
Message no. 49
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 13:08:12 +0100
Paolo Marcucci wrote:
> Maybe the problem is *how* FASA calls the vaiours matrix components. I agree
> that a system (in 205x!) cannot have a single cpu, but let's see at it as a
> main process, located somewhere on the computer network. SPUs can be either
> different computers or different process, Datastores are directories, with
> restricted access, I/O ports are like unix ports, with processes attached to
> them that control doors, guns, etc... and so on.
>
> Anyone wants to further elaborate this?

Ok, this makes it all a bit more plausible, but this still leaves you
with the biggest pile of crap of them all. How do you explain that IC can run
on any node, even fragging I/O and datastore ones. Or do you mean to say that
by 205x we'll have directories that will have computational power :)

--
GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)
PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r

"In my mind I see the matrix, and in the matrix is held the power. The lock
to the matrix is my will, and in the matrix my will becomes the power."
Message no. 50
From: Gallas William <gallas@**.EC-LYON.FR>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 16:28:45 MET
Just think about primitives arguing about light and electricity.
They'll say it's not possible because lightning are going from the sky
to the earth and because sun is on the "sky vault".
You are arguing about a technology we don't know anything about.

Cobra.
Message no. 51
From: "S.F. Eley" <gt6877c@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 14:21:31 -0400
> Ok, this makes it all a bit more plausible, but this still leaves you
> with the biggest pile of crap of them all. How do you explain that IC can run
> on any node, even fragging I/O and datastore ones. Or do you mean to say that
> by 205x we'll have directories that will have computational power :)

Yes. Do you know why we have operating systems, Jani? A directory isn't
just a set of magnetic splotches on a disk. It's the processes and handlers
that make those splotches mean something and then logically organize the sets
of meanings. Specifically, the disk controller does the physical work, under
the guidance of the device driver, then the operating system interprets the
data as a filesystem, which usually contains "directories" which reference
groups of data called "files." Some OS's do much more; some, like DOS, do
little else. The point is that without the operating system, you don't HAVE
directories. Data doesn't exist without "computational power" to interpret
it.

That's what you're decking into when you crack a datastore. You're not
on the physical data device itself, you're on the computer acting as the
file server. And you'd better believe that computer is going to be protected
by IC, particularly if the data is sensitive.


Blessings,

_TNX._

--
Stephen F. Eley (-) gt6877c@*****.gatech.edu )-( Student Pagan Community
http://wc62.residence.gatech.edu|
My opinions are my opinions. | "God is a polytheist."
Please don't blame anyone else. |
Message no. 52
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 19:48:36 +0100
S.F. Eley wrote:
>
> > Ok, this makes it all a bit more plausible, but this still leaves you
> > with the biggest pile of crap of them all. How do you explain that IC can run
> > on any node, even fragging I/O and datastore ones. Or do you mean to say that
> > by 205x we'll have directories that will have computational power :)
>
> Yes. Do you know why we have operating systems, Jani? A directory isn't
> just a set of magnetic splotches on a disk. It's the processes and handlers
> that make those splotches mean something and then logically organize the sets
> of meanings.

Yes, but that doesnt mean that the magnetic material on the disk can run
a programm. I agree with you in that you have to *spend* computational power
to give the data some meaning, but my argument is that SR assumes that you
can let IC or any other programm for that matter run in a datastore. If
we accept (as others already posted) that a datastore is the equivalent of
a hard disk or even some other sort of storage this would mean that this
storage medium generates (as opposed to spends) computational power.
And this my friend is not that plausible, unless you say that by the year
205x we'll be able to write software that takes advantage of such massively
parralel systems that even hard drives will have some more CPUs just for good
measure. And even if this were correct, the SR system still doesnt make sense
as I think that there are way better places to put your CPUs than the HD.
BTW puting a CPU in your drive may not be a bad idea after all (the spirit
of C-64 lives on :)

> Specifically, the disk controller does the physical work, under
> the guidance of the device driver, then the operating system interprets the
> data as a filesystem, which usually contains "directories" which reference
> groups of data called "files." Some OS's do much more; some, like DOS, do
> little else. The point is that without the operating system, you don't HAVE
> directories. Data doesn't exist without "computational power" to interpret
> it.

Yes, whats your point ? All this procesing only spends computational power
it doesnt generate any.

> That's what you're decking into when you crack a datastore. You're not
> on the physical data device itself, you're on the computer acting as the
> file server. And you'd better believe that computer is going to be protected
> by IC, particularly if the data is sensitive.

Ok so we're back to the network theory, ok this could explain why programms
can run on a datastore, but it opens a different can of worms. If the datastore
is a separate compuer (as a fileserver) why cant you directly access the node
instead of having to go through every fragging piece of hardware the corp owns.
You could use various teqniques to "isolate" a special node or a sub-domain,
but it would be plain and simple braindamage to do this for *every* node in
the domain.

--
GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)
PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r

"In my mind I see the matrix, and in the matrix is held the power. The lock
to the matrix is my will, and in the matrix my will becomes the power."
Message no. 53
From: "S.F. Eley" <gt6877c@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 00:48:44 -0400
Jani Fikouras writes:

> Yes, but that doesnt mean that the magnetic material on the disk can run
> a programm. I agree with you in that you have to *spend* computational power
> to give the data some meaning, but my argument is that SR assumes that you
> can let IC or any other programm for that matter run in a datastore. If
> we accept (as others already posted) that a datastore is the equivalent of
> a hard disk or even some other sort of storage this would mean that this
> storage medium generates (as opposed to spends) computational power.

Nope. That is not what I meant. A datastore is NOT the equivalent of a
hard disk; it's the equivalent of a filesystem. It's the logical
representation of the data on that disk. If you assume that whatever's
representing that logic is a reasonably sophisticated device and is running
standard Matrix operating software (whatever that is) then I don't see why
it can't run decker personas and IC as well as anything else. Yes, the
assumption that every simple process is standardized and extensible like
that IS stretching it, but only to the point of science fiction, not to the
point of insanity. It makes even more sense if you take object-oriented
programming into account.



> BTW puting a CPU in your drive may not be a bad idea after all (the spirit
> of C-64 lives on :)

They have that. It's called an IDE drive, and it's used by the majority
of PC's in the world today. The controller is integrated into the drive,
making it less powerful but cheaper than SCSI.


> Ok so we're back to the network theory, ok this could explain why programms
>can run on a datastore, but it opens a different can of worms. If the datastore
>is a separate compuer (as a fileserver) why cant you directly access the node
>instead of having to go through every fragging piece of hardware the corp owns.
>You could use various teqniques to "isolate" a special node or a sub-domain,
>but it would be plain and simple braindamage to do this for *every* node in
>the domain.

Because your "access" is a stream of electrons and photons that DOES have
to go through every piece of hardware between your cybedeck and the device
you want to get at. I cover this in another post.. You don't need special
techniques to enforce security, you just have to make every device aware of
the traffic that passes through it.


Blessings,

_TNX._

--
Stephen F. Eley (-) gt6877c@*****.gatech.edu )-( Student Pagan Community
http://wc62.residence.gatech.edu|
My opinions are my opinions. | "Lord, what fools these mortals be..."
Please don't blame anyone else. | - Puck, _A Midsummer Night's Dream_
Message no. 54
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 11:02:20 +0100
Jani Fikouras said on 6 Oct 95...

> Ok, this makes it all a bit more plausible, but this still leaves you
> with the biggest pile of crap of them all. How do you explain that IC can run
> on any node, even fragging I/O and datastore ones. Or do you mean to say that
> by 205x we'll have directories that will have computational power :)

Though I'm not really a computer geek, I am of the understanding that on a
modern-day PC you can run a .exe file from any directory... You could say
that, if datastores are directories, the system monitors which directory
the decker is in, and activates programs (IC) that are stored in that
directory. If the decker then moves to another dir, the system moves the
IC to the same dir to continue the attack on the decker.

Or maybe not :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The Serious Lemon Squad
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(--) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 55
From: Jason Earl <SirPuck@***.COM>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 08:43:03 -0400
This is a quote from someone who doesn't get the names in the matrix:

> Ok, this makes it all a bit more plausible, but this still leaves you
>with the biggest pile of crap of them all. How do you explain that IC can
run
>on any node, even fragging I/O and datastore ones. Or do you mean to say
that
>by 205x we'll have directories that will have computational power :)

When the decker enters the 'CPU' he does not actually enter the physical CPU,
he simply enters a Virtual 'Room' where he can monitor and control the CPU.
It is like opening the control panel on your PC to turn up the volume on
your sound card, the only difference is that it is Virtual Reality and not a
2D computer screen. The VR room is an interface not a place.

The same idea works with datastores, I/O nodes etc. You are not changing
physical places you are changing interfaces, your body does not go anywhere
(your persona just appears to go to another place).

Hope that clears it up
Sir Puck
Decker Extraordinaire
Message no. 56
From: Paolo Marcucci <paolo@*********.IT>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 16:59:19 +0100
At 13.08 06/10/95 +0100, you wrote:
>> Anyone wants to further elaborate this?
>
> Ok, this makes it all a bit more plausible, but this still leaves you
>with the biggest pile of crap of them all. How do you explain that IC can run
>on any node, even fragging I/O and datastore ones. Or do you mean to say that
>by 205x we'll have directories that will have computational power :)
>
>>GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)

No. But look at any OS with a certain degree of security, like Unix or NT.
When you change to a directory, sometimes it gives you the message Access
Denied or You don't have the right to read this directory. This happens
because you cannot move freely into directories, but you have to launch a
command (like CD temp).
Actually, the CD command simply refuses you to enter a directory if you
don't have the necessary rights, in 2056 the CD command could do nastier
things :)

The computation power involved is not in the medium or the directory itself,
but in the CD command.

Er.. I think.

Bye, Paolo
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paolo Marcucci paolo@*********.it
InterWare Service Provider http://www.interware.it/users/paolo
Trieste, Italy
Ph. +39-40-774488
------------------------------------------------------------------
Home of The Shadowrun Archive
Message no. 57
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 01:51:54 +0930
People seem to be debating how you can execute commands in a datastore...
The problem is, you're thinking too literally. A matrix network in SR maps
only minimally onto the physical network. It's not even a logical
representation (which usually has some sort of mapping) of the physical
network. It's a SYMBOLIC relationship.

Take a datastore... this could be just an optical disk. It could also be a
whopping big computer dedicated as a file server. What's the difference?
Security? Not necessarily. Bluntly, there may be no difference. SPUs need
not be seperate machines, but could be integrated into one.

Also, if you couldn't execute commands in a datastore (ie, no IC allowed),
how does the persona get there? It's just a roving program as well, after
all, run in the node as much as in the deck. In my mind, the worst idea
that FASA had for the Matrix was the one-way data line in NAGRL...

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 58
From: Blade Hunter <bladehnt@*********.NET>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 16:35:40 -0400
On Sun, 8 Oct 1995, Robert Watkins wrote:
> how does the persona get there? It's just a roving program as well, after
> all, run in the node as much as in the deck. In my mind, the worst idea
> that FASA had for the Matrix was the one-way data line in NAGRL...

Yes, whoever wrote up the polarized data-lines described it far too
simply, but there is a quick fix via good ol' logic. Unfortunatly, you'd
have to analyze each situation as it comes up and decide how the
hardware/software was setup. (You can only execute certain node commands
after passing down a one-way line and various other weird things that
make me glad my players hate deckers....).
Message no. 59
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 10:12:19 +0930
Blade Hunter wrote:
>
> Yes, whoever wrote up the polarized data-lines described it far too
> simply, but there is a quick fix via good ol' logic. Unfortunatly, you'd
> have to analyze each situation as it comes up and decide how the
> hardware/software was setup. (You can only execute certain node commands
> after passing down a one-way line and various other weird things that
> make me glad my players hate deckers....).

*shrug* I ignore it... I use a different form of one-way line which REALLY
doesn't allow signals to travel back up it. If a persona goes down it, the
connection gets cut and the decker is dumped. However, smart frames can be
sent down it, and they may even be able to send stuff back if there's
another link somewhere...

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 60
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 00:16:13 -0400
On Sun, 8 Oct 1995, Robert Watkins wrote:

> In my mind, the worst idea that FASA had for the Matrix was the
> one-way data line in NAGRL...

Actually, this one's not so hard to swallow either. There are
certain machines that you can give commands to but that can't send them
back. It would be like telnetting to a machine that had no dial-out
capabilities (Whoa! That would be weird...). Or better yet,
telnetting to a machine where the "logout" command had been disabled.
Man, wouldn't *that* be a pain in the ass.

Marc
Message no. 61
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 16:02:49 +0930
Marc A Renouf wrote:
>
> Actually, this one's not so hard to swallow either. There are
> certain machines that you can give commands to but that can't send them
> back. It would be like telnetting to a machine that had no dial-out
> capabilities (Whoa! That would be weird...). Or better yet,
> telnetting to a machine where the "logout" command had been disabled.
> Man, wouldn't *that* be a pain in the ass.

But the persona is an interactive program... it's already sending stuff
from you to the node and back, so why can't you leave?

(And the way I get out of a machine with the logout command disabled is by
escaping to telnet. :) )


--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 62
From: Charles McKenzie <kilroy@**.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 05:45:13 -0500
On Sun, 8 Oct 1995, Robert Watkins wrote:
> all, run in the node as much as in the deck. In my mind, the worst idea
> that FASA had for the Matrix was the one-way data line in NAGRL...

So true. If these existed, it would be impossible to either send a data
request to a datastore or to get one in return. Either way, you couldn't
move into the node in the matrix.

Kilroy

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d- s+: a19 C++>$(++++) US(L+++) L E---->+++ W++ N++ o? K-? w+
!O M-- V? PS+ PE(-) Y+ PGP- t 5 X R++(+++) !tv b++ DI+++ D++ G e*
h++ !r--- !z+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
http://yar.cs.wisc.edu:80/~kilroy/
Message no. 63
From: Charles McKenzie <kilroy@**.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 06:07:37 -0500
On Sun, 8 Oct 1995, Marc A Renouf wrote:

> Actually, this one's not so hard to swallow either. There are
> certain machines that you can give commands to but that can't send them
> back. It would be like telnetting to a machine that had no dial-out
> capabilities (Whoa! That would be weird...). Or better yet,
> telnetting to a machine where the "logout" command had been disabled.
> Man, wouldn't *that* be a pain in the ass.

No. It would be like telneting to a machine that couldn't send a packet
to you. Sure you can send instructions there, but you never even
get the...
login:
so it would be a bit hard to tell if you were doing it right.
I liked the idea about sending a program frame down it though.

Kilroy
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1
GCS d- s+: a19 C++>$(++++) US(L+++) L E---->+++ W++ N++ o? K-? w+
!O M-- V? PS+ PE(-) Y+ PGP- t 5 X R++(+++) !tv b++ DI+++ D++ G e*
h++ !r--- !z+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
http://yar.cs.wisc.edu:80/~kilroy/
Message no. 64
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 11:36:18 +0100
Charles McKenzie said on 8 Oct 95...

> > It would be like telnetting to a machine that had no dial-out
> > capabilities (Whoa! That would be weird...). Or better yet,
> > telnetting to a machine where the "logout" command had been disabled.
> > Man, wouldn't *that* be a pain in the ass.
>
> No. It would be like telneting to a machine that couldn't send a packet
> to you.

It would be like using Windows 95 to phone your provider... It connects
but you don't get to see anything...

Yes, I speak from experience...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
History as we like to see it
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X+ R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(--) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 65
From: "Andrew W. Ragland" <RAGLAN45@*****.MMC.EDU>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 11:55:29 -0500
>Nope. That is not what I meant. A datastore is NOT the equivalent of a
>hard disk; it's the equivalent of a filesystem. It's the logical

Yeah. Ever hear of RAID striping? It allows an array of hard drives to act
like one big one, with files segmented across multiple physical drives. A
datastore is an icon, a virtual space. It has only the most tenuous of
connections to physicality. Only slave nodes and i/o ports really have hard
and fast connections to the meat world as far as I know.

Andrew W. Ragland |GTW @*+(-) s++/+ a c++(++++)| _ Prayer Division|
Product Support Manager |G+ y* L e* W !N o+ K w++$ M+| /\ /\ Ariadne, |
R & M BioMetrics / BioQuant|O+$ V+ +PS- +PE- Y+ PGP @*+ | |-*-| Strengthen |
raglan45@*****.mmc.edu |5@ X+ R+++>$ h---- b+++ r+++| \/_\/ The Web! |
The Internet is a Process, not a Thing
Message no. 66
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 19:12:52 +0100
S.F. Eley wrote:
>
> Jani Fikouras writes:
>
> > Yes, but that doesnt mean that the magnetic material on the disk can run
> > a programm. I agree with you in that you have to *spend* computational power
> > to give the data some meaning, but my argument is that SR assumes that you
> > can let IC or any other programm for that matter run in a datastore. If
> > we accept (as others already posted) that a datastore is the equivalent of
> > a hard disk or even some other sort of storage this would mean that this
> > storage medium generates (as opposed to spends) computational power.
>
> Nope. That is not what I meant. A datastore is NOT the equivalent of a
> hard disk; it's the equivalent of a filesystem. It's the logical
> representation of the data on that disk. If you assume that whatever's
> representing that logic is a reasonably sophisticated device and is running
> standard Matrix operating software (whatever that is) then I don't see why
> it can't run decker personas and IC as well as anything else. Yes, the
> assumption that every simple process is standardized and extensible like
> that IS stretching it, but only to the point of science fiction, not to the
> point of insanity. It makes even more sense if you take object-oriented
> programming into account.

Ok assuming that a datastore is either some sort of computer or at least
a demon that serves the files you want in a matrix compatible way, you'r right.

> > BTW puting a CPU in your drive may not be a bad idea after all (the spirit
> > of C-64 lives on :)
>
> They have that. It's called an IDE drive, and it's used by the majority
> of PC's in the world today. The controller is integrated into the drive,
> making it less powerful but cheaper than SCSI.

Ofcourse, but this hardware is dedicated. Its only task is to make sure
that the drive whats its supposed to do, its not there to run fragginbg programs.
Dont you see where this is getting rediculus ?

> > Ok so we're back to the network theory, ok this could explain why programms
> >can run on a datastore, but it opens a different can of worms. If the datastore
> >is a separate compuer (as a fileserver) why cant you directly access the node
> >instead of having to go through every fragging piece of hardware the corp owns.
> >You could use various teqniques to "isolate" a special node or a
sub-domain,
> >but it would be plain and simple braindamage to do this for *every* node in
> >the domain.
>
> Because your "access" is a stream of electrons and photons that DOES have
> to go through every piece of hardware between your cybedeck and the device
> you want to get at. I cover this in another post.. You don't need special
> techniques to enforce security, you just have to make every device aware of
> the traffic that passes through it.

Yes that could be done, but "standard security" - things like demons who
control who gets in and who gets out - are worthless once managed to fool
one of them. In other words once you manage to get past one you can pass
through all the others with no trouble. If you want that the user gets
actively checked all the time you need to have systems that work separately
from each other, and that can seriously degrade system performance.

--
GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)
PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r

"In my mind I see the matrix, and in the matrix is held the power. The lock
to the matrix is my will, and in the matrix my will becomes the power."
Message no. 67
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 19:43:36 +0100
Jason Earl wrote:
>
> This is a quote from someone who doesn't get the names in the matrix:
>
> > Ok, this makes it all a bit more plausible, but this still leaves you
> >with the biggest pile of crap of them all. How do you explain that IC can
> run
> >on any node, even fragging I/O and datastore ones. Or do you mean to say
> that
> >by 205x we'll have directories that will have computational power :)
>
> When the decker enters the 'CPU' he does not actually enter the physical CPU,
> he simply enters a Virtual 'Room' where he can monitor and control the CPU.
> It is like opening the control panel on your PC to turn up the volume on
> your sound card, the only difference is that it is Virtual Reality and not a
> 2D computer screen. The VR room is an interface not a place.

I dont know whether this has occured to you, but any programm run on a
computer takes control of the CPU, you dont need any special tool to do
that. My god even the metaphors used in this system are trashy.

--
GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)
PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r

"In my mind I see the matrix, and in the matrix is held the power. The lock
to the matrix is my will, and in the matrix my will becomes the power."
Message no. 68
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 19:47:48 +0100
Paolo Marcucci wrote:
>
> At 13.08 06/10/95 +0100, you wrote:
> >> Anyone wants to further elaborate this?
> >
> > Ok, this makes it all a bit more plausible, but this still leaves you
> >with the biggest pile of crap of them all. How do you explain that IC can run
> >on any node, even fragging I/O and datastore ones. Or do you mean to say that
> >by 205x we'll have directories that will have computational power :)
> >
> >>GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M--
!V(--)
>
> No. But look at any OS with a certain degree of security, like Unix or NT.
> When you change to a directory, sometimes it gives you the message Access
> Denied or You don't have the right to read this directory. This happens
> because you cannot move freely into directories, but you have to launch a
> command (like CD temp).
> Actually, the CD command simply refuses you to enter a directory if you
> don't have the necessary rights, in 2056 the CD command could do nastier
> things :)

Yep, but this is only "the first line of defense" and onced you have managed
to go past it you shouldnt have any problems with any other security measures
that build up from the same groundwork. In other words, once you have persuaded
the system that you are Mr.Soandso you can cd and <insert generic command> all
you like, the system wont keep asking you the same question over and over again.

--
GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)
PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r

"In my mind I see the matrix, and in the matrix is held the power. The lock
to the matrix is my will, and in the matrix my will becomes the power."
Message no. 69
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 19:54:00 +0100
Robert Watkins wrote:
> People seem to be debating how you can execute commands in a datastore...
> The problem is, you're thinking too literally. A matrix network in SR maps
> only minimally onto the physical network. It's not even a logical
> representation (which usually has some sort of mapping) of the physical
> network. It's a SYMBOLIC relationship.

Yes, this is the interpretation that makes the most sense. But (at least
to me) it feels like that old (and hated) $$&$ mechanic concerning 60 sec
rounds:
"Yeah a combat round may be 60 seconds, but the fact that you only roll
one attack doesnt mean that you just sit around the rest of the time. You
just ignore the rest of you attempts and just roll this one because of
some foobar reason."
Sure you can use the symbolic representation excuse to explain away
fragging everything (just ask Freud :) the point is, I want something
more substantial and by that I dont mean a networking primer, I mean
something like the rest of the SR system, something thats realistic
yet not ball-busting.

> Also, if you couldn't execute commands in a datastore (ie, no IC allowed),
> how does the persona get there? It's just a roving program as well, after
> all, run in the node as much as in the deck.

Thats what I dont get Bob :)

> In my mind, the worst idea
> that FASA had for the Matrix was the one-way data line in NAGRL...


--
GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)
PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r

"In my mind I see the matrix, and in the matrix is held the power. The lock
to the matrix is my will, and in the matrix my will becomes the power."
Message no. 70
From: Jason Earl <SirPuck@***.COM>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 15:29:19 -0400
In a message dated 95-10-06 15:08:26 EDT, you write:

> Ok so we're back to the network theory, ok this could explain why
programms
>can run on a datastore, but it opens a different can of worms. If the
>datastore
>is a separate compuer (as a fileserver) why cant you directly access the
node
>instead of having to go through every fragging piece of hardware the corp
>owns.
>You could use various teqniques to "isolate" a special node or a sub-domain,
>but it would be plain and simple braindamage to do this for *every* node in
>the domain.

The datastore is not a "separate" computer it is a programmed environment.
The CPU runs the entire construct (that is what it is there for) the
'Datastore' is nothing more than the program interface for the mass storage
device of the system. You can not directly access the node for several
reasons: a) it is entirely possible that there is no direct connection to the
node -- many applications today require that we make choices on several
different screens before we get to the part of the application that we really
want to use; systems are exactly the same thing only MUCH bigger. b)
Security, Deckers move at the speed of thought so programming the matrix so
that it is like a maze is no hidrance to the corporate types (after all they
can simply go the the CPU and transfer to any node they want) they know where
they are going; Mazes are a BIG problem for deckers who are new to the system
(like the jokers trying to put themselves on the payroll).

Hope this helps
Sir Puck
Message no. 71
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 13:01:48 -0400
On Mon, 9 Oct 1995, Jani Fikouras wrote:

> In other words, once you have persuaded the system that you are
> Mr.Soandso you can cd and <insert generic command> all you like, the
> system wont keep asking you the same question over and over again.

Unless you cd into a directory with different permissions. Then
it's very well possible that your presence will be challenged again. It
is reasonable that a large network with lots of different people doing
different jobs would be set up this way, compartmentalized and yet able
to interact as a whole when necessary.

Marc
Message no. 72
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 15:30:14 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "MAR" == Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
writes:

MAR> Unless you cd into a directory with different permissions. Then
MAR> it's very well possible that your presence will be challenged
MAR> again.

In short, look at the security paradigm of VMS. Sure, slam it all you
want, but if you're looking for a paradigm for a secure filesystem
arrangement then something like VMS is one of the best ways to do it.

VMS has a multi-layer security arrangement. At the outter layer is login
validation (and this is pretty much where Unix ends). Beyond that, each
file and each device (including disks) has several security tags and
fields which may be set or cleared in addition to file ownership.
Whenever a file or device is accessed the security flags are checked,
the attempt may or may not be logged, a message may or may not appear on
the system console, any of a number of other actions may occour, and
ultimately access granted or denied. All this happens in real time.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4beta, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMHrJvZ6VRH7BJMxHAQF8+wQApwfr+kFoX17uVksZl4oQ1lbaknvHZMnX
CYkVcvX8r1v+iigr/E8tIf+Up5ZcV76OYzKp/nOW4wKBAP2XrvCDKe3YIBi8fqNx
MaUslCzilrVGEggoltD5o8FJZghHA6hyPfmEQHjB+ng0Yl7U22538/Vw/jbMscSW
UE6kBBBNC4A=
=MtiZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds.
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \
Message no. 73
From: Nathan Walker <NTWALKER@******.SUNYGENESEE.CC.NY.US>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 17:08:30 -0400
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
>In short, look at the security paradigm of VMS. Sure, slam it all you
>want, but if you're looking for a paradigm for a secure filesystem
>arrangement then something like VMS is one of the best ways to do it.
[Technical stuff cut]

Of course, I have tried to get into places on this system where I was never
meant to go, and no-one has ever said a word about it...OTOH, I am kind of
well-known here, I am kind of the bug-finder of the college...If there's a
hole in the security somewhere (and there have been) I am usually the one to
find it.

So, the point of this somewhat pointless message is that even though there
can be really neat-cool-ultimate security on some of these systems, it isn't
worth a darn if no-one's looking. Of course, in the 2050's, the security
could be totally different, but this is how it goes today...

>>>>>>> Nate, or Vax-Man :)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| NTWalker@******.SUNYGENESEE.CC.NY.US |
| a.k.a. The Joker |
| |
| Where does he get those marvelous toys? |
| - Joker |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d- s:- a--->? C++++ U->++++ P+>++++ L>++ E--- W+ N? o? K? w--- O? M--
V++>- PS PE Y+ PGP? t+++(-) 5++ X+ R++ tv+ b+ DI? D++ G++ e>++ h!>++ !r y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 74
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: matrix?
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 17:48:02 +0100
Marc A Renouf wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Oct 1995, Jani Fikouras wrote:
>
> > In other words, once you have persuaded the system that you are
> > Mr.Soandso you can cd and <insert generic command> all you like, the
> > system wont keep asking you the same question over and over again.
>
> Unless you cd into a directory with different permissions. Then
> it's very well possible that your presence will be challenged again. It
> is reasonable that a large network with lots of different people doing
> different jobs would be set up this way, compartmentalized and yet able
> to interact as a whole when necessary.

It all depends on the level of clearance you got yourself. I take it
that a decker would go for the top, or at least more that simple
user rights. If thats not the case he can barelly do anything interesting
to the system.

--
GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)
PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r

"In my mind I see the matrix, and in the matrix is held the power. The lock
to the matrix is my will, and in the matrix my will becomes the power."
Message no. 75
From: VAEL <vael@**********.COM>
Subject: MATRIX
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:05:43 +7
I was reading the Daily Variety a few days ago, and ran across an
articel that delt with the casting for: "'Matrix' a cyberpunk,
virtual reality story set in a 'fantastic' future of earth."

Originally slated to star Keanu Reeves, and Brad Pitt, the studio has
now opted for Keanu and Lawrence Fishbourne (If I remeber correctly)

I remember reading somewhere Shadowrun related, that Christopher
Kubasik, the original author of the Lenny story back up to VR 1.0 had
sold the rights to the peice and it was being made into a feature,
away from the licensing agreements impossed by FASA. (Chris had the
story concept copyrighted in his name, not FASA's)

Does anybody know if this 'Matrix' is the motion picture version of
this story?

I've got a friend of mine digging into it, but it may take him a few
days.

Thanks,


__ __ _____ __
\ \/ // ___|| |
\ // __| | |_
\//_/|____||___|
Message no. 76
From: Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: MATRIX
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 22:42:06 -0700
---VAEL wrote:
>
> I was reading the Daily Variety a few days ago, and ran across an
> articel that delt with the casting for: "'Matrix' a cyberpunk,
> virtual reality story set in a 'fantastic' future of earth."
>
> Originally slated to star Keanu Reeves, and Brad Pitt, the studio has
> now opted for Keanu and Lawrence Fishbourne (If I remeber correctly)
>
> I remember reading somewhere Shadowrun related, that Christopher
> Kubasik, the original author of the Lenny story back up to VR 1.0 had
> sold the rights to the peice and it was being made into a feature,
> away from the licensing agreements impossed by FASA. (Chris had the
> story concept copyrighted in his name, not FASA's)
>
> Does anybody know if this 'Matrix' is the motion picture version of
> this story?

It very well could be. Minor details were given by Mike and Co. at Gen
Con. However, no details such as a title and casting was mentioned.

What they did say, as thought the story was copyrighted outside of
FASA domain, terms and phrases that are copyrighted by FASA were used
in it. If they want to stay with the same "phrasiology" then the
Shadowrun name has to be tied to the movie. AFAIK the word Matrix is a
FASA copyright.

-== Loki ==-
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fearless Leader of the Shadowrun Trading Card Game Mailing List
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Web Page: Poisoned Elves at www.primenet.com/~gamemstr
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
SRTCG trade lists last updated 9/29/97
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com
Message no. 77
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MATRIX
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 00:30:17 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-01 01:46:40 EDT, daddyjim@**********.COM writes:

> What they did say, as thought the story was copyrighted outside of
> FASA domain, terms and phrases that are copyrighted by FASA were used
> in it. If they want to stay with the same "phrasiology" then the
> Shadowrun name has to be tied to the movie. AFAIK the word Matrix is a
> FASA copyright.
>
You are most accurate in your perceptions, as such, go inquiring along the
FASA public relations division (or whatever their equivalent is). It could
also be a legal advisory effect acting as an agent for certain things, as
well as Chris himself having been given some sort of similar ability on a
set, if such were true.
-K
Message no. 78
From: dghost@****.com dghost@****.com
Subject: Matrix
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 20:19:29 -0600
I just saw a commercial for the movie The matrix and ... WOW! It's got
that hack, Keanu Reeves (Sp?) in the lead, but WOW! That is a
mindblowing commercial ... Can anybody fill me in on the premise for the
movie?

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"You, you're like a spoonful of whoopass." --Grace
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire (2nd
Edition)

___________________________________________________________________
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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 79
From: GRANITE granite@**.net
Subject: Matrix
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:51:58 -0700
> I just saw a commercial for the movie The matrix and ... WOW! It's got
> that hack, Keanu Reeves (Sp?) in the lead, but WOW! That is a
> mindblowing commercial ... Can anybody fill me in on the premise for the
> movie?

See VR 1.0..somewhere in there is the basic premise..minus al the
stuff that makes it happen in SR though..
--------------------------------GRANITE
"Rock Steady"
==============================================Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The
Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer
==============================================Understanding is a three edged sword. - Kosh
What is best in life?
To Crush Your Enemies,
See Them Driven Before You,
And To Hear The Lamentation Of Their Women. -Conan
I Am The LAW! -JD
Jamais Arriere
Message no. 80
From: Tim Kerby drekhead@***.net
Subject: Matrix
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 9:51:37 -0500
At 3/8/99 8:19:00 PM, DGhost wrote:

>I just saw a commercial for the movie The matrix and ... WOW! It's got
>that hack, Keanu Reeves (Sp?) in the lead, but WOW! That is a
>mindblowing commercial ... Can anybody fill me in on the premise for the
>movie?

After seeing several TV commercials, and two separate 3-minute movie trailers,
I can honestly say I don't have a fraggin' clue. It does look nice, though.

--
================================================================ - Tim Kerby -
drekhead@***.net - ICQ-UIN 2883757 -
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not sure about the the universe." -Albert Einstein
Message no. 81
From: Bill Thompson BillT@*********.com
Subject: Matrix
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 11:02:18 -0800
On 3/9/99 GRANITE wrote:

> > I just saw a commercial for the movie The matrix and ... WOW! It's got
> > that hack, Keanu Reeves (Sp?) in the lead, but WOW! That is a
> > mindblowing commercial ... Can anybody fill me in on the premise for the
> > movie?
>
> See VR 1.0..somewhere in there is the basic premise..minus al the
> stuff that makes it happen in SR though..

Close but no cigar. I do know the basic plot, but first...

M
A
T
R
I
X

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E

This is what I have picked up from various magazines and web sites. I could be
wrong, but this is the best I have.

The basic plot is about an average guy (Keanu Reeves) who is living his normal
life in 1999. When strange things start happening around him he discovers that
the date is actually 2099 and he has been living in a virtual reality
controlled by a massive computer that has taken over the world. He is recruited
by an underground group of rebels who also know about the VR world and have
learned to manipulate it. For some reason, they come up with a plan to free the
world that involves black trenchcoats and a lot of guns. The rebels ability to
manipulate the VR world allows them to "freeze" time, walk up walls, and leap
tall buildings in a single bound.

I had originally hoped that this would be the story from VR1, but it looks like
the only similarity is the term MATRIX. Form the previews I've seen, the movie
is visually stunning but it seems to be lacking on the plot side. I'll still go
and see it as soon as it is out.

Bill Thompson - Mahagonny.com
On the Internet there are no independent agents.
Message no. 82
From: grahamdrew grahamdrew@*********.com
Subject: Matrix
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 14:07:38 -0500
dghost@****.com wrote:
>
> I just saw a commercial for the movie The matrix and ... WOW! It's got
> that hack, Keanu Reeves (Sp?) in the lead, but WOW! That is a
> mindblowing commercial ... Can anybody fill me in on the premise for the
> movie?
Well, after watching the trailer over and over trying to figure out
what's happening, I see it as a cybered Truman Show, with Reeves playing
a guy who has been living in a computer simulated work, then finds out
what it really is, the leads an effort to do somehting (this is where my
powers of deduction fallshort) in which there is a lot of random
shooting. Well, I'm seeing it :-)
Message no. 83
From: Pantherr pantherr@*****.net
Subject: Matrix
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:52:45 -0600
> I just saw a commercial for the movie The matrix and ... WOW! It's got
> that hack, Keanu Reeves (Sp?) in the lead, but WOW! That is a mindblowing
> commercial ... Can anybody fill me in on the premise for the movie?

"I can't tell you what The Matrix is. You'll have to see it for yourself"

www.whatisthematrix.com is the official website for the movie.
looks INCREDIBLE :)

Pantherr
Base not your joy upon the deeds of others, for what is given can be taken away. No hope
= no fear - Peter Steele, in dedicati
ng BLood
y Kisses
Message no. 84
From: Fhaolan arkemp@*****.ca
Subject: Matrix
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 19:22:29 -0800
At 11:02 AM 3/9/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>M
>A
>T
>R
>I
>X
>
>S
>P
>O
>I
>L
>E
>R
>
>S
>P
>A
>C
>E

<snip>

>For some reason, they come up with a plan to free the
>world that involves black trenchcoats and a lot of guns.

Of course. Without the trenchcoat brigade, how would you know it's world
saving time? I mean, jeeze, gotta be in style to save the world.... ;)

-Fhaolan
Message no. 85
From: Iridios iridios@*********.com
Subject: Matrix
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 10:50:33 -0500
Bill Thompson wrote:

> M
> A
> T
> R
> I
> X
>
> S
> P
> O
> I
> L
> E
> R
>
> S
> P
> A
> C
> E

A
D
D
I
N
G

A

B
I
T

M
O
R
E



> I had originally hoped that this would be the story from VR1, but it looks like
> the only similarity is the term MATRIX. Form the previews I've seen, the movie
> is visually stunning but it seems to be lacking on the plot side. I'll still go
> and see it as soon as it is out.

Some Hollyweird producer probably read the original story and said,
"What the H*ll? A story about a formless boy rubbing the belly of a
computerized bear, being taught how to hack computers by The Devil?
No one would believe that!"

BTW, no offense is intended. I liked the story in the back of VR1 but
I can just see someone not familiar with SR reading it and giving up.


--
"My fellow Americans,
I'm pleased to tell you today, that I've signed legislation that
will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes"
-Ronald Reagan

Iridios
iridios@*********.com
ICQ UIN:6629224
The ShadowZone is down for Revision
Please email me with Zone Notification as subject to be
notified when it reopens.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9489

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Matrix, 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!