Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	lists@*******.com (Wordman)
Subject:	Rethinking the Matrix system
Date:	Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:44:12 -0400

Message no. 1 This is a bit of random smattering, but here goes...

In some recent posts, the following were mentioned (sometimes by me,
sometimes by others, sometimes both):

1) The Matrix mechanics, while improved in SR3 are based around an
entirely flawed concept.
2) The Matrix mechanics involve significantly too much die rolling.

I already mentioned one thought on changing this: remove sleaze.

But, if serious and completely replacing the Matrix with something
based around a better idea, what would that idea be?

I'm of the opinion that any new system should have these goals:

1) Based on drama not dice. When a decker goes into the system, he
might be thinking "what can I find" but the system should gear itself
so that the GM is not distracted from thinking "what kind of story can
I tell".

2) Computer systems are built to be useful, not as decker playground.

3) Fast resolution. Deckers should be useful characters, but letting
them do what they do best should not bog down the game.

Within most Matrix stories, the drama comes from danger, of course, but
even more than most types of stories revolves around time: can he find
what he's looking for before being detected? Will the file download
before he gets cut to pieces by the IC? Can he deactivate the MacGuffin
switch before the rest of the party is toast?

Apart from this kind of drama, the Matrix has three other functions in
a story:

The Matrix is a set. In as much as Shadowrun is a game where you can
tell .any. story, the Matrix makes this even more so. It's the fucking
holodeck. As a backdrop, it is unrivaled. Use it as such.

The Matrix is a culture. Since much of Shadowrun involves finding and
moving information, dealing with people in the Matrix (even with
non-deckers) would happen all the time. Like any collection of people
(this list, for example) it has its own culture and this can lead to
stories in their own right (e.g. we need to get the key to this system,
but only the mysterious decker John the Dick has it, and he'll only
give it to us if we personally deliver flowers to Detective Grissom in
Seattle). The culture, in other words, is more that dressing -- it can
move the story.

The Matrix is a conduit. With instant communications, the Matrix can
help a story by transcending limitations of location.

An opinion: the Matrix would be better with a minimization of getting
into systems without passwords. The SR myth is that deckers can just
waltz past security challenges without knowing anything about the
system they are invading. (Actually, given the mechanics, this is more
than myth presently). I don't think it should work like that. In the
real world, hacking comes from three sources:

1) Exploiting bugs. Deckers find out about the system they are going to
attack (what versions of software it runs, etc.) and exploit known
problems in that software, usually with utilities. In rare cases, they
may actually seek such weaknesses themselves.

2) Social Engineering. Deckers attack the system at its weakest point:
the people who use it. In our timeline, the source code to one of the
time's most advanced operating systems was stolen using little more
than a phone. More comments on this in a second.

3) Guessing. Deckers use a lot of patience (and usually utilities) to
take advantage of common vulnerabilities (most often the fact that
humans choose bad, easily guess-able passwords). Often this is targeted
using #2, above. For example, there is a good chance that someone
reading this uses their anniversary as their banking PIN. A decker
finds your anniversary (or names of pets, children, birthdays, etc.),
he may be able to guess your password.

Sure it might be possible to ghost into a system, but I think that
should be rare. Perhaps only possible with low level systems. I favor
this because it provides (forces, actually) gaining a way into the
system to be part of the story, and that means better role-playing. In
particular, it means three things:

1) The entire party can do social engineering, even if it is a
"rubber-hose" attack (beating a guy into giving up his password).
During this process, the decker character is a driving force,
integrating them into the party a bit better.

2) GM's can, when necessary, use the old "magic key" plot device, where
an NPC has a magic security key that can get you into the system
"before midnight". This allows GMs to bypass legwork and social
engineering they don't want to deal with. It allows the GM to let
deckers into systems (say, Aztechnology Pyramid) once without
necessarily letting him back in later.

3) It provides a compelling reason for deckers to come along with the
party during penetrations. Gaining access to a system is always easier
from inside than out (though sometimes not by much). IMO, "isolated
systems" (i.e. those intentionally disconnected from the Matrix for
security) would be extremely rare. Keep in mind that disconnecting
completely means going without phones. When I was a consultant, I
encountered only three systems intended to be isolated from the
internet, and none of them actually was. In two cases, isolation proved
too inconvenient for the employees, so the (against company policy)
patched connections between the "isolated" host and the network with
internet access. Most people don't bother, trusting firewalls.

I'm thinking that a typical run in a system would be something like:

1) A whole bunch of role-playing happens for the decker to find where
he's supposed to be and how he might get in. (See above).

2) Decker gets in. (Dice required) Decker probably needs to convince
the system he has more rights than the user he logged in as (utilities
and dice required).

3) Decker explores if necessary. In many cases, this would NOT be
required. Think of computer systems you use now. How many of them
require you to hunt around for a long time to find what you want? Not
many. Usually, the system is laid out in a way to give you exactly what
you want. What I'm getting at here is that in many cases, the time
taken for most decking runs should not be that long. Naturally, there
will be some instances where this is not the case (e.g. decker must
sift through mail for keywords on the off chance they are useful). Even
in these cases, though, the work will more likely be done by programs,
not the decker. The experience in a system should be largely
role-playing while some daemons run. Any dice rolling here should be
mainly for the purposes of figuring out _how_long_something_takes_, not
if it succeeded. In general.

4) Decker downloads what he finds and bails.

So, that's maybe two or three rolls. If the GM wants, they can make it
more complicated (a stranger/confusing environment, etc.) and tell a
more complex story within the system, possibly with more rolls,
possibly not. Naturally, if combat happens, its just like meat-world
combat: time slows and lots of dice are rolled.

What do you want in a decking system?

Wordman

From:	snake.eyes@***.net (Snake Eyes)
Subject:	Rethinking the Matrix system
Date:	Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:04:32 -0700

Message no. 2 At 06:44 PM 9/21/2004, Wordman wrote:

>What do you want in a decking system?

Exactly what you just wrote!

~ Snake Eyes

From:	pentaj2@********.edu (John C. Penta)
Subject:	Rethinking the Matrix system
Date:	Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:15:09 -0400

Message no. 3 ----- Original Message -----
From: Wordman <lists@*******.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 9:44 pm
Subject: Rethinking the Matrix system

> IMO,
> "isolated
> systems" (i.e. those intentionally disconnected from the Matrix
> for
> security) would be extremely rare. Keep in mind that disconnecting
> completely means going without phones. When I was a consultant, I
> encountered only three systems intended to be isolated from the
> internet, and none of them actually was. In two cases, isolation
> proved
> too inconvenient for the employees, so the (against company
> policy)
> patched connections between the "isolated" host and the network
> with
> internet access. Most people don't bother, trusting firewalls.

Isolated systems may be rare in *corporate* settings. Not so, for example, in government
settings; There, isolated systems (or at least systems that live disconnected from the
Internet) seem to be the norm. With critical systems, it'o rather safe to assume such a
thing. Similar with classified systems, assuming we mean NIPRNet and the public backbone
(and not SIPRNet, a slightly different beast best depicted as a massive collection of
private RTGs and LTGs). (Actually, a question. Would anyone even still *have* the old
AUTOVON/AUTODIN/SIPRNet backbone available?)

Similarly, this applies to critical infrastructure systems; Most do *not* have net
connections, at all.

From:	snake.eyes@***.net (Snake Eyes)
Subject:	Rethinking the Matrix system
Date:	Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:44:45 -0700

Message no. 4 At 08:15 PM 9/21/2004, John C. Penta wrote:

>Isolated systems may be rare in *corporate* settings. Not so, for example,
>in government settings; There, isolated systems (or at least systems that
>live disconnected from the Internet) seem to be the norm.

[SNIP]

>Similarly, this applies to critical infrastructure systems; Most do *not*
>have net connections, at all.

Yeah, but when dealing with the government it might also be prudent to mix
it up a little. Not everyone has their systems as squared away as the NSA.

For example, at my rinky-dink little agency we have two different isolated
semi-to-non-mission-critical systems that don't connect to the Internet,
don't talk on the LAN, and don't even talk to each other. One host must be
even be administered via serial connection by a specific laptop that is
passed around like it's the nuclear football.

On the other end of the spectrum, we recently had to fend off a request by
management to put our production payroll server out in the DMZ, ostensibly
so field staff could fill out their time sheets remotely.

So you never know what you're gonna get.

~ Snake Eyes

From:	lists@*******.com (Wordman)
Subject:	Rethinking the Matrix system
Date:	Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:02:14 -0400

Message no. 5 On Sep 21, 2004, at 11:15 PM, John C. Penta wrote:

> Isolated systems may be rare in *corporate* settings. Not so, for
> example, in government settings; There, isolated systems (or at least
> systems that live disconnected from the Internet) seem to be the norm.

This .should. be true. From what I gather, it usually isn't.

Things also get murkier when you consider government systems generally
have to offer layered security clearance and this proves stunningly
difficult to do. For example, if one user can access secret and top
secret documents, and another can access standard and secret, it turns
out to be more difficult that you might assume to prevent the first
user from shuffling information to the second via the level of
clearance they share.

If you care about this stuff, read Security Engineering:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471389226/shadowfaq

This book should be required reading for all SR GM's. It's sidebars on
how to steal a painting alone are worth the (unfortunately high) price.

From:	korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject:	Rethinking the Matrix system
Date:	Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:54:15 -0700 (PDT)

Message no. 6 > 1) The Matrix mechanics, while improved in SR3 are based around an
> entirely flawed concept.
> 2) The Matrix mechanics involve significantly too much die rolling.

[SNIP]

> What do you want in a decking system?
>
> Wordman

Well done! :)

This sort of approach is actually easy to do within the existing
rules. The key concept overlooked throughout this thread, and by so
many SR gamers is this: story before dice, not dice before story.

Too often, GMs and players take the approach taht every rule must be
implemented and used BTB, and when the book indicates a dice roll it
must be used. This mentallity create an environment where announcing
that your character intends to stop by the restrooms and relieve
himself a those synth-beers he had with Mr. Johnson results in a
request for a Willpower test to make sure he holds out until he is in
the bathroom, an Athletics test to manipulate the fastenings of his
synthleathers, and a Quickness test for the rest.

I have always tried to minimize dice rolls in favor of descriptive
role playing. Especially when a given task (be it decking, rigging,
or chatting up a member of the opposite sex) is either ridiculously
easy or impossibly hard for a given character. If the PC has 10
dice, a TN of 2, and needs 1 success... don't ask for a dice roll.
Ask what they are doing and describe an outcome that pretty well
coincides with their intentions. If, on the other hand, they have 2
dice, a TN of 11, and need 3 succeses for the roll to have any
meaningful effect... advise the player that their PC is pretty sure a
different plan is in order (it should be noted that I give all PCs
the benefit of the "Common Sense" edge... if their character would
know better by virtue of surviving through puberty, I tell them).

This applies in the Matrix as much as anywhere else. Why is it we
can roleplay negotiations, but then have to roll a million dice to
describe a simple hack? If the character is a hacker par excellence,
trying to snag payroll records from some mom & pop host, the whole
thing can probably be played out without any more dice rolling than
you'd ask from a skilled Face-type PC trying to pick up a date for
the evening. If the dice pool is bigger than 6, and the TN is less
than 6, and a single success will suffice, I just increment the
security tally one and tell them what they have accomplished by their
declared action. I have run large scale matrix insertions concurrent
with combat scenarios, contract negotiations, or chase scenes and not
seen any appreciable lag.

Now, certainly, a player can be inconsiderate, and try to dominate
play with endless solo matrix runs for paydata. Then again, any
player can do this kind of thing with any character. The trick is to
find subtle punishment for taking the focus off the group, and off
the storyline. I will outright ignore a player if they spend more
than 15 minutes of game time drawing attention to themself and their
character alone. If they are rude and/or persitant about it, they
will get a note suggesting they think "group-oriented play" or go
home for the night.

So, back to decking.

As with any scenario in the game, there are three important factors
that the player and the GM need to consider.

1: What does the character sense (see, hear, smell, etc)? The GM
should take all these into consideration when setting a scene. The
player should pay attention, and ask for more detail if they are
having trouble picturing things.

2: What does the character/GM want to accomplish? Nothing bogs a
game down faster than when no one has goals. Players should not log
into a host, then sit there saying... "Ummm... so... is there like,
some paydata or something?" Likewise, the GM should always be
thinking of the core story and any subplots. How is this scenario
relevant to the ongoing game? What does the GM want the PC to
accomplish that they have not included in their stated goals?

3: What are the character's skills? There is nothing more
frustrating to me than a player looking at me as I describe a
paracritter, and then saying "ummm, so, like, is there some way... I
mean, do we... like, can we find out what it is?" In front of them,
on their character sheet, is the Knowledge skill Parazoology 5.
Hello?! Anyone home? The player should absolutely know the skills
their character has, and the GM should try and have at least a
general picture.

So, we have clearly described/understood scenes. We have a set of
goals. And we have a character with some skills and gear. The
player should know what those skills and gear can do, and have a plan
for how to use them. Instead of the player saying for the 50th time,
"so I want to log into the ummm, host thing, what do I roll?" they
can say "I stroll up to the golden gate, acting like I belong. Back
at my deck, I fire up PacketMask.exe and morph my outward appearance
to look like one of these email messages zipping through. Then I
skate on toward the gate with all the rest of the traffic. <aside>
That util is rating 4." The GM can quickly check the Access rating,
the decker's skill, and even calculate some target number mods for
the creative description. If it looks like the resulting TN is
pretty easy, describe the decker rolling on through, increment the
sec tally 1 and move on. This same approach can take care of
probably 75% of all decking.

Caveat: no matter what, anything the decker does in the way of
interacting with a host should add at least one to a sec tally. Bits
flip and traces are left.

If a decker is fighting some IC and gets descriptive about using data
steams and other icons for cover, I take it into account when
figureing TNs. In short, I treat the Matrix like anything else in
the game, asking for dice rolls when they will increase the drama and
tension, or significantly effect the storyline, and otherwise letting
flavor text carry the day.

I think the real reason people are rolling dice with the Matrix is to
cover a gap in understanding, visualization, and creativity when it
comes to decking. If player and GM were more comfortable with the
concepts, and could both visualize what was happening, what they
wanted to accomplish, the dice would become less necessary. As they
do with many other parts of SR. You want to talk about excessive
dice rolling, try staging a three or four vehicle chase scene with
riggers! *grin* In my games, the (highly abstract and
unrealistic) mechanics for decking have become as transparent as
those for shooting, driving, or intimidating. Once you get to this
point, it does not matter how you derive which dice to roll and what
the TN is. What will matter is how you picture the attempt and the
result. Much the same as with any other scenario, in any RPG out
there.

======Korishinzo
--single most useful operation in the history of SR decking...
Validate Passcode :)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

From:	graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject:	Rethinking the Matrix system
Date:	Wed, 22 Sep 2004 10:36:47 -0600

Message no. 7 On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:54:15 -0700 (PDT), Ice Heart
<korishinzo@*****.com> wrote:
>
> Now, certainly, a player can be inconsiderate, and try to dominate
> play with endless solo matrix runs for paydata. Then again, any
> player can do this kind of thing with any character. The trick is to
> find subtle punishment for taking the focus off the group, and off
> the storyline.

I think I just thought of a rule to handle this. This isn't thought
out very much, I'm just tossing it out there to see what sticks.

Every time a character hacks a system his *Matrix* security tally
increases (based on how well or poorly he did when hacking the
system). If his Matrix tally gets to high he runs the risk of a)
drawing the attention of agencies like the FBI, NSA, CIA, Interpol,
*all* of the Megas, etc and b) triggering Matrix IC (this is the stuff
designed to keep the Crash of '29 from ever happening again, it's
nasty nasty IC).

A decker's Matrix tally decreases over time (-1 per day?). This keeps
most deckers from hacking the big systems and encourages them to make
a paydata run no more than once every couple of days (unless they
screw up really badly in which case they might need to take a few
weeks or months off), and keeps a lid on how much money they can
realistically make a year.

--
-Graht

From:	gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject:	Rethinking the Matrix system
Date:	Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:45:35 +0200

Message no. 8 According to Ice Heart, on Wednesday 22 September 2004 17:54 the word on
the street was...

> This sort of approach is actually easy to do within the existing
> rules. The key concept overlooked throughout this thread, and by so
> many SR gamers is this: story before dice, not dice before story.

That has not actually been overlooked (well, perhaps in the thread, but not
in my previous thoughts on the subject). As I see it, the problem is that
scenery doesn't matter in the Matrix -- "You stand before a great black
gate with static energy crackling over it" is 100% the same as "The
entrance into the host resembles the gates of the castle in Disneyland",
or even as "Roll a Logon to Host test". Whereas with physical actions the
scenery is important -- players react differently to a great big gate with
a guardhouse on it than an emergency door that has a guard patrolling the
corridor behind it.

> I have always tried to minimize dice rolls in favor of descriptive
> role playing. Especially when a given task (be it decking, rigging,
> or chatting up a member of the opposite sex) is either ridiculously
> easy or impossibly hard for a given character. If the PC has 10
> dice, a TN of 2, and needs 1 success... don't ask for a dice roll.

The snag with decking: you need to know the host's successes as well. If a
player tries to perform a really easy operation on a difficult host, the
host can still score enough successes to prevent it from happening, while
in the real world there is nothing actively trying to make the character
pee before he gets to the toilet. (Usually, anyway ;)

> Hello?! Anyone home? The player should absolutely know the skills
> their character has, and the GM should try and have at least a
> general picture.

That doesn't stop my players from asking questions like the one you used as
an example anyway...

> I think the real reason people are rolling dice with the Matrix is to
> cover a gap in understanding, visualization, and creativity when it
> comes to decking. If player and GM were more comfortable with the
> concepts, and could both visualize what was happening, what they
> wanted to accomplish, the dice would become less necessary.

My experience is that decking devolves into nothing but dice rolling
because that's the only thing that actually matters in the Matrix. Every
time I've tried describing what the host looks like, visualizing
everything that happens, getting the decker to describe what his programs
look like, and having a player who knew and understood the decking rules,
before the run was half over we were back at: "I want to find information
about X on this host", "Roll <whatever system operation is
appropriate>".

> --single most useful operation in the history of SR decking...
> Validate Passcode :)

Definitely. Too good for how difficult it is, too.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
+--The end is here
|-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
|-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-
|
|GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ 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?
|Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
V

From:	korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject:	Rethinking the Matrix system
Date:	Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:04:44 -0700 (PDT)

Message no. 9 > I think I just thought of a rule to handle this. This isn't
> thought
> out very much, I'm just tossing it out there to see what sticks.
>
> Every time a character hacks a system his *Matrix* security tally
> increases (based on how well or poorly he did when hacking the
> system). If his Matrix tally gets to high he runs the risk of a)
> drawing the attention of agencies like the FBI, NSA, CIA, Interpol,
> *all* of the Megas, etc and b) triggering Matrix IC (this is the
> stuff
> designed to keep the Crash of '29 from ever happening again, it's
> nasty nasty IC).
>
> A decker's Matrix tally decreases over time (-1 per day?). This
> keeps
> most deckers from hacking the big systems and encourages them to
> make
> a paydata run no more than once every couple of days (unless they
> screw up really badly in which case they might need to take a few
> weeks or months off), and keeps a lid on how much money they can
> realistically make a year.

I do something like this with reputation. I use a 2-track rep tally
in my games... something like a condition monitor of rep. One is
good, one is bad.

I start with a base rep of 20. Every 50 karma points earned drops
the base by 1. This is the base TN rolled on legwork tests ~against~
the PC. That is, anyone digging for info on them, good or bad. The
reputation monitor further effects this TN. The total amount of good
and bad rep points together is subtracted from the base TN when
someone is looking for info on the character. The difference between
the two monitors is used as a modifier to social tests the character
makes, ~if~ the other person knows the charcter's rep. So if the PC
has a higher bad rep than good, and Mr. J knows this, than the PC
suffers a penalty to rolls. Higher good rep than bad, they get a
beneficial modifier. Good rep points go away at a rate of 1 per 2
days. Bad rep points go away at a rate of 1 per week. A Charisma
test can be used to reduce or increase the time it takes for a rep
point to fade. The TN for reducing bad rep points fade time is as
follows:

L = 3, M = 5, S = 8

Every success decreases the fade time by a day.

The TN to increase good rep fade time is as follows:

L = 8, M = 6, S = 4

Every success increases the fade time by 12 hours.

Every time a decker hits the Matrix for anything (that is, logs in
with his persona, not makes a phone call), his persona accumulates
rep points. The more rep points his persona has, the more likely it
is that someone's legwork will point them to it. A good rep might
still be detrimental if it helps an angry corp decker track you down
at your favorite cyber cafe.

To limit paydata runs further, I use the following rule.

For every paydata point higher than his Charisma that a decker sells
at one time, he accumulates a bad rep point. Other deckers want to
make bank too, and once your charm runs out, they start getting
annoyed at your success.

I use a similar rule with mages and enchanting. Every force point
worth of foci/talsimans a PCmage sells past their Charisma
accumulates bad rep. Driving market share down for talismongers is
not going to win a mage friends.

These two rules came from the same game back under SR2. The mage was
shacked up in a safehouse cranking out orichalcum, while the decker
was hiding someplace doing paydata runs 24-7. The game ground to a
rather boring halt, while those two amassed ridiculous wealth.

I typically add rep points (good and bad) at the end of a session, in
equal amounts to karma gained that session. The difference is, the
players don't know what their rep monitor is at unless they hit the
streets and make some Etiquette (Street, Magic, Matrix, etc) tests,
basically doing legwork on themselves.

My GM screen has a post-it note on it for each PC, with their current
base rep and rep monitor (hash marks followed by days until a point
fades). This minor bit of book keeping eats about 10-15 minutes at
the end of each game session, and makes the rep system very reactive
to PC actions. It has worked well for me over the last 8 years.

======Korishinzo
--"You just did a paydata run. An hour ago. The team needs
overwatch while they hit that lab. You are going to go do another
one!?!?" Tick tick tick... "Sorry chummer... seem to be fresh out of
blank chips again this week. What, you'll pay triple? Lemme check
again? Nah, boss says check back in a week. At triple." :>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

From:	msde_shadowrn@*****.com (Mark S)
Subject:	Rethinking the Matrix system
Date:	Wed, 22 Sep 2004 10:19:00 -0700 (PDT)

Message no. 10 --- "John C. Penta" <pentaj2@********.edu> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Wordman <lists@*******.com>
> Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 9:44 pm
> Subject: Rethinking the Matrix system
>
> > IMO,
> > "isolated
> > systems" (i.e. those intentionally disconnected from the Matrix
> > for
> > security) would be extremely rare. Keep in mind that disconnecting
> > completely means going without phones. When I was a consultant, I
> > encountered only three systems intended to be isolated from the
> > internet, and none of them actually was. In two cases, isolation
> > proved
> > too inconvenient for the employees, so the (against company
> > policy)
> > patched connections between the "isolated" host and the network
> > with
> > internet access. Most people don't bother, trusting firewalls.
>
> Isolated systems may be rare in *corporate* settings. Not so, for
> example, in government settings; There, isolated systems (or at least
> systems that live disconnected from the Internet) seem to be the
> norm. With critical systems, it'o rather safe to assume such a thing.
> Similar with classified systems, assuming we mean NIPRNet and the
> public backbone (and not SIPRNet, a slightly different beast best
> depicted as a massive collection of private RTGs and LTGs).
> (Actually, a question. Would anyone even still *have* the old
> AUTOVON/AUTODIN/SIPRNet backbone available?)
>
> Similarly, this applies to critical infrastructure systems; Most do
> *not* have net connections, at all.

Classified systems will generally be kept isolated, but I have been
reading a few news articles that state the opposite for government and
corporate systems. In addition to rogue APs set up by employees, I
believe there are critical infrastructure systems that are on the net
in some form. This generally occurs through the use of legacy systems.
The original, well designed system is created in isolation. Years
later, additional functionality is added to the system, and a common
oversight is to forget to remove connections from the added
functionality.

This isn't to say that the majority of systems have back doors, but
it's more than just rogue wireless APs and modems.

> Graht wrote:
> I think I just thought of a rule to handle this. This isn't thought
> out very much, I'm just tossing it out there to see what sticks.

> Every time a character hacks a system his *Matrix* security tally
> increases (based on how well or poorly he did when hacking the
> system). If his Matrix tally gets to high he runs the risk of a)
> drawing the attention of agencies like the FBI, NSA, CIA, Interpol,
> *all* of the Megas, etc and b) triggering Matrix IC (this is the
stuff
> designed to keep the Crash of '29 from ever happening again, it's
> nasty nasty IC).

> A decker's Matrix tally decreases over time (-1 per day?). This
keeps
> most deckers from hacking the big systems and encourages them to make
> a paydata run no more than once every couple of days (unless they
> screw up really badly in which case they might need to take a few
> weeks or months off), and keeps a lid on how much money they can
> realistically make a year.

It sounds like a possible starting point, but some more on Matrix IC
(is it well known?) would be good, as well as whether a decker could
reset his count by using a new deck, or impersonate another decker by
using their chips.

Mark

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer