Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Glenn Royer <groyer@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Security tallies......
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:11:14 -0500
One Ronin wrote:
>
My interpretation of VR 2.0 was that
> the security tally is unique to the HOST, not just the decker. IE: if
> decker A raised the sec tally on a host to 8, logged off, and then
> decker B would enter the host, the sec tally would still be at 8. I
> thought the the security tally was an indication of how much a
> particular host has been "screwed" with. If a host is on passive alert,
> it WILL be on passive alert no matter which decker enters it. Right?
> (Well, at least until it resets itself.) So why wouldn't the security
> tally stay the same on the host no matter which decker is doing what.
> For example......two deckers both log on to a host. Wouldn't the host
> have ONE security tally and add to that all success achieved against
> EITHER decker? At this point, I don't really know if I'm making much
> sense, but if anyone out there can understand me, please put this in
> terms that the rest of the list can understand. And....an answer to my
> question would be nice. <:-)
>
I dont think this is an issue that is really dealt with in VR2.0, but
the only answer to this that I can see is yes, security tallies are not
"subjective" like the rest of the matrix is, and the actions of multiple
deckers against the system affect them all equally. That can raise the
question of, when proactive IC is triggered, who does it go against?
and the answer to that is, whoever caused it to go over that line. If
that distinction is hazy, then it should be whatever is appropriate to
the story. Triggered IC would not be visible to all deckers, obviously,
only those deckers being attacked or maybe in that immediate vicinity.
A nasty trick for a decker to do against another decker is to play the
turf: lure a decker onto a system that you know intimately.. maybe you
have some backdoor passes installed into the machine. When your target
enters the host, unsupress IC you've kept tucked away and watch as the
system unleashes 9 levels of hell on your target (err.. and you...
well... thats what your 'backdoors' are for!).
Message no. 2
From: Bob Tockley <zzdeden@*******.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Security tallies
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:51:14 +1000
>The main problem I see with the current incarnation of the decking rules
>(aside from their utter lack of reality in the first place) is that they
>seem to make the assumption that a single decker will be decking a given
>host at a given time. The tally reflects this.
>
>You're right. In the real world, the tally would apply to the host, and
>each decker would inherit the drek mess left behind by someone else in the
>system. Multiple deckers in the system would gain notice much quicker than
>a lone decker.
>
>However, even I'm not ruthless enough to inflict THAT on a decker. That's
>why I advocated taking separate tallies but applying each trigger step to
>all deckers.

Erm... "utter lack of reality in the first place"? Three things for you to
think about:

1) they're 60 years more advanced in computer technology than we are. I
seriously doubt you, I, or anyone else can possibly conceive of all the
changes that 60 years and a complete overhaul of computer tech (after the
crash of '29) would entail.

2) It doesn't say anywhere in the rules (either VR2.0 or SR3) that the
tallies are considered separately for each decker on the system. Some
sentences seem to imply this, but others imply the exact opposite. It's a
judgement call. Use those rules interpretation powers of yours and simply
say the tally applies to everyone and everything on the system (which is a
massive resource wastage - think how many people incorrectly type in the
password a few times...) or apply it on a icon by icon basis and have a
separate tally each. Note, that regardless of this, passive and active
alerts would apply to everyone.

3) It's a game. Game's don't necessarily have to reflect real life. I
mean, there's magic and cyberware and stuff, right? Who says they'll even
be possible and if they are whether or not the rules accurately reflect
their 'real life' workings.



(>) ARKHAM
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve
immortality by not dying." - Woody Allen.
Message no. 3
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Security tallies
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 02:15:08 -0500
At 11:51 AM 1/28/99 +1000, Bob Tockley wrote:
>
>Erm... "utter lack of reality in the first place"? Three things for you to
>think about:
>
>1) they're 60 years more advanced in computer technology than we are. I
>seriously doubt you, I, or anyone else can possibly conceive of all the
>changes that 60 years and a complete overhaul of computer tech (after the
>crash of '29) would entail.

Actually, no, I don't grant that. I'm an IT professional. I'm not a
computer engineer or anything, but I do know computers and networks. I
know the hows and whys behind networks, what's changed, and what hasn't,
and what's in the works.

The power and complexity of computers and networks have exploded over the
past several years, but most of the fundamental operating principles remain
the same. 1's and 0's, y'know?

At its heart, the SR Matrix is based on the cyberspace of Gibson's novels.
Unfortunately, Gibson was completely ignorant of real computing when he
wrote those books, aside from a few general principles. That's okay, it's
just fiction. But I don't think it's unfair at all to say that there's a
significant schism between fiction and reality that can't be explained away
by future tech. You don't use Star Trek as a guide to physics, and you
don't use cyberpunk fiction as a guide to computer science.

>2) It doesn't say anywhere in the rules (either VR2.0 or SR3) that the
>tallies are considered separately for each decker on the system. Some
>sentences seem to imply this, but others imply the exact opposite. It's a
>judgement call. Use those rules interpretation powers of yours and simply
>say the tally applies to everyone and everything on the system (which is a
>massive resource wastage - think how many people incorrectly type in the
>password a few times...) or apply it on a icon by icon basis and have a
>separate tally each. Note, that regardless of this, passive and active
>alerts would apply to everyone.

As I pointed out in my post, I think the VR rules are broken in this
context. They seem to only anticipate single-decker intrusions. Now, it's
common sense that the more that is going down in a system, the more likely
that someone's going to get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Too
many cooks spoil the broth, right?

So, as I said, keep separate tallies to be fair to the deckers (because
some security issues are based on individual tally), but have the triggered
security functions apply to all deckers on the system, to reflect the
reality of having multiple people doing illegal things in the same system
bringing grief down that much quicker on all of them.

>3) It's a game. Game's don't necessarily have to reflect real life. I
>mean, there's magic and cyberware and stuff, right? Who says they'll even
>be possible and if they are whether or not the rules accurately reflect
>their 'real life' workings.

Yes, it's a game. It's a hobby. But how many conversations have gone on
about the "realism" of combat, weapons, vehicles, etc.? Simply pointing
out that the computers in SR bear no resemblance to reality or the
direction of modern computing isn't a crime. Trying to bring the fiction a
little closer to the reality adds verisimilitude, just like it does for any
other aspect of the game.


--
Starjammer - starjammer@**********.com - Marietta, GA

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death
that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it
to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn
the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be
nothing. Only I will remain."
-- Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert, Dune
Message no. 4
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Security tallies......
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:20:32 -0600
:I dont think this is an issue that is really dealt with in VR2.0, but
:the only answer to this that I can see is yes, security tallies are not
:"subjective" like the rest of the matrix is, and the actions of multiple
:deckers against the system affect them all equally. That can raise the
:question of, when proactive IC is triggered, who does it go against?
:and the answer to that is, whoever caused it to go over that line. If
:that distinction is hazy, then it should be whatever is appropriate to
:the story. Triggered IC would not be visible to all deckers, obviously,
:only those deckers being attacked or maybe in that immediate vicinity.

What does "in the imediate vincinity" mean in the matrix? You either
see an icon, or you don't. You can perform a "locate Icon" type op on
anything in a host- there is no "near or far" to speak of.

Your intepretaion also strongly implies that the system has one
"piece" of IC, which it releases like some sort of fast response team, and
if it gets killed, its dead. That is silly- IC is software, why not just
boot the backup copy, and send out 10 or 20 of the same piece of IC? The
answer, IMO, is because the deckers accumulated ST is a vital information
componant in the IC's attack process.
IMO, IC is a process launced against a decker when the system A) has
enough info to do so and B) is progrmmed to do so. The first requires a
high enough ST (for that one decker), the second a pre-programmed
allocation of proccessing power and a judgement on the part of the system
opperators.

:A nasty trick for a decker to do against another decker is to play the
:turf: lure a decker onto a system that you know intimately.. maybe you
:have some backdoor passes installed into the machine. When your target
:enters the host, unsupress IC you've kept tucked away and watch as the
:system unleashes 9 levels of hell on your target (err.. and you...
:well... thats what your 'backdoors' are for!).

You'd better be ready to run, yeah. But why would it care so much
about the guy who only just logged in illegally (and might have done so
"cleanly", without affecting the ST at all), who might be a total
non-threat, when it sees you running the same masking pattern (probability
of such identified as ST increased) as they guy who just crashed a few
IC's, and hence is a obvious threat? Sure if you were such a nuisance
that the system went on alert or shut down, those conditions would affect
the other Decker, but the IC looking for you doesn't even know he exists!

Mongoose
Message no. 5
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Security tallies......
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:52:40 EST
In a message dated 1/28/1999 2:05:05 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
m0ng005e@*********.COM writes:

>
> What does "in the imediate vincinity" mean in the matrix? You either
> see an icon, or you don't. You can perform a "locate Icon" type op on
> anything in a host- there is no "near or far" to speak of.

Just to clarify something here.

"immediate vicinity" could mean "Contact Range", or something that you
can
engage in direct actions with/against (same node within a server). "Far"
range could easily mean anything within the same host/subsystem that the user
is interacting within.

"Out of Range" is anything that is beyond the aquittable server/host currently
acting within.

-K
Message no. 6
From: Glenn Royer <groyer@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Security tallies......
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:25:25 -0500
Mongoose wrote:
>
> What does "in the imediate vincinity" mean in the matrix? You either
> see an icon, or you don't. You can perform a "locate Icon" type op on
> anything in a host- there is no "near or far" to speak of.

'in the immediate vicinity' means contact range. you could also make a
free test to see it if you are within sensor range. so, at least as far
as your perceptions go, there is a 'near' and 'far'. i dont interpret
it to mean that everything in a host is immediately visible.

<snip ST is procedure and affects everyone individually>

yes, this makes a lot more sense to me now. the only thing that should
be a constant between deckers as far as the ST goes is alert status.

so that means that a decker could come into a system with ST 0 but the
system could be on active alert already.

the only problem i still see with that is that a decker could skip the
ST lowering period by logging back on with a different cyberdeck, or
maybe just different persona chips.

-glenn
Message no. 7
From: Michael vanHulst <Schizi@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Security tallies
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:48:00 EST
Okay guys, I may be coming into this a little late, and it may have been
mentioned, but in the example on pg 65 of VR2, it specifically says Selena
runs up the tally, then logs off, when CyberSushi logs on half an hour later,
the host still has not reset, and continues to have a tally instigated by
Selena.

Again, sorry if this was mentioned and I missed it.
Message no. 8
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Security tallies......
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:33:23 -0600
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:20:32 -0600 Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
writes:
>:I dont think this is an issue that is really dealt with in VR2.0, but
>:the only answer to this that I can see is yes, security tallies are not
>:"subjective" like the rest of the matrix is, and the actions of
multiple
>:deckers against the system affect them all equally. That can raise the
>:question of, when proactive IC is triggered, who does it go against?
>:and the answer to that is, whoever caused it to go over that line. If
>:that distinction is hazy, then it should be whatever is appropriate to
>:the story. Triggered IC would not be visible to all deckers,
obviously,
>:only those deckers being attacked or maybe in that immediate vicinity.

> What does "in the imediate vincinity" mean in the matrix? You
either
>see an icon, or you don't. You can perform a "locate Icon" type op on
>anything in a host- there is no "near or far" to speak of.

Well, my first instinct when reading your question was to compare
distance to near, short, and far memory calls (I'm not sure if this order
is correct.). While this does have some merit, after some thought I
decided to discard the idea. In case you are wondering about what I am
referring to, the Intel processor (I can't speak for any other
processors.) has different memory reference instructions that used
depending on how far away in memory a desired address is from the current
memory location. The difference is based on how much memory is required
to hold the address change (IIRC, the three types are 8 bit, 16 bit, and
32 bit). It's been a while since I've done Assembly programming so I'm a
bit rusty. However, the point is there is an effect of distance in
memory (and within the processor, actually) that could be translated to
physical distance in the cdeck's matrix representation (and in fact, also
is related to physical distance in the computer.).

My next idea was to look in VR2 at the sample hosts, specifically at the
Ares System. I agree reluctantly with Mongoose that being on the same
Host puts you "in the imediate vicinity" of someone/thing else on that
host. (I guess the reason for the reluctance is because of VR1 breakdown
into SANs, SPUs, CPUs, etc. in addition to VR2's goal of creating a
system that creates an *abstract* version of the VR1.) However, where
"imediate vicinity" might come into play is systems like Ares' where
there are multiple hosts.

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"We called him Mother Superior because of the length of his habit" --
Trainspotting
"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. 9
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Security tallies......
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:04:58 -0600
:> What does "in the imediate vincinity" mean in the matrix? You
either
:> see an icon, or you don't. You can perform a "locate Icon" type op on
:> anything in a host- there is no "near or far" to speak of.
:
:Just to clarify something here.
:
:"immediate vicinity" could mean "Contact Range", or something that
you
can
:engage in direct actions with/against (same node within a server). "Far"
:range could easily mean anything within the same host/subsystem that the
user
:is interacting within.
:
:"Out of Range" is anything that is beyond the aquittable server/host
currently
:acting within.
:
:-K

Again, AFAIK, you can interact with anything on the same host as your
icon. (That, afaik, is what a "node" is- did you mean something else?)
This is rather different from SR2 / vr1, where there were in fact limits
to where you could go and and what you could see within a system. In VR2,
you just have to be looking in the right place to find anything that might
be on that host.

Mongoose
Message no. 10
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Security tallies
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:12:12 -0600
:Okay guys, I may be coming into this a little late, and it may have been
:mentioned, but in the example on pg 65 of VR2, it specifically says
Selena
:runs up the tally, then logs off, when CyberSushi logs on half an hour
later,
:the host still has not reset, and continues to have a tally instigated
by
:Selena.
:
: Again, sorry if this was mentioned and I missed it.

I must admit, I had always viewed that example as being in error- it
is the only mention of a SYSTEM having a ST, as opposed to a Decker, and
IC being "active" when you just jacked in makes little sense to me. To
me, it looked like a mis-example the editor added. (It's likely- a LOT of
VR2 was "written" by the editors, and even they found the original hard to
understand.) I don't think FASA has put out the VR2 errata yet- I'll
pester them to correct / clarify this one.

Mongoose
Message no. 11
From: Penta <cpenta@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Security tallies
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:29:05 -0800
Mongoose wrote:

> :Okay guys, I may be coming into this a little late, and it may have been
> :mentioned, but in the example on pg 65 of VR2, it specifically says
> Selena
> :runs up the tally, then logs off, when CyberSushi logs on half an hour
> later,
> :the host still has not reset, and continues to have a tally instigated
> by
> :Selena.
> :
> : Again, sorry if this was mentioned and I missed it.
>
> I must admit, I had always viewed that example as being in error- it
> is the only mention of a SYSTEM having a ST, as opposed to a Decker, and
> IC being "active" when you just jacked in makes little sense to me. To
> me, it looked like a mis-example the editor added. (It's likely- a LOT of
> VR2 was "written" by the editors, and even they found the original hard to
> understand.) I don't think FASA has put out the VR2 errata yet- I'll
> pester them to correct / clarify this one.
>
> Mongoose

Hold on...VR2's been out since...1996, and there's been NO Errata? WHA?

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Security tallies......, 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!