Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Security tallies......was:Re: one or two VR2 questions (not
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:10:51 -0500
At 03:58 PM 1/27/99 PST, One Ronin wrote:

<snip question about security tallies applying to hosts, not deckers>

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.


--
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. 2
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Security tallies......was:Re: one or two VR2 questions (not
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 06:59:12 EST
In a message dated 1/27/1999 6:59:52 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
ronin@*******.COM writes:

>
> With all this debate going on about Deckers and security tallies, a
> question has formed in my mind. 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. <:-)

Actually, if I have followed your logic and line of questioning, you are
correct in that a Security Sheathe is for the Host and not the decker. So
yeah, the Decker A leaves Decker B arrives and wonders "WHAT THE HELL??" is
probably very accurate.

-K
Message no. 3
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Security tallies......was:Re: one or two VR2 questions (not
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 07:02:21 EST
In a message dated 1/27/1999 8:10:07 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
starjammer@**********.COM writes:

>
> 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.

Actually, we *DO* apply it to the decker/PC's, because that is precisely how
things would work. But, to make sure everyone understands something, please
remember that the number of illegal break-ins (via computers/hacking/decking)
may be high overall, but breaking in to a particular system at a particular
time is NOT going to have a high impact count (number of intruders). And,
there are VERY good reasons that the sheathe is applied for all actions
occurring simultaneously. The Bandwidth and MP flow rates within a system
(for lack of better comparison, the amount of "RAM" being used by the system)
will be higher for more intruders acting inside the system at the same time
(more system resources being allocated in unauthorized directions).

-K
Message no. 4
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Security tallies......was:Re: one or two VR2 questions (not
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:00:32 -0600
:With all this debate going on about Deckers and security tallies, a
:question has formed in my mind. 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.

I see it as an indication of how well the host can screw with the
decker. Variety in security sheaves reflects many things, from the
technicla difficulty of noticing unauthorized activity to the legal
neccesity of provably recording such activity to shear administrato error.

: If a host is on passive alert,
:it WILL be on passive alert no matter which decker enters it. Right?

Yes, that is a specific condition that affects a host, and is noted as
such.

:(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.

Because they haven't done the same thing. One might be some weafle
runner pulling bonehead moves, and another would be Fastjack himself
running in stelth mode just to get from one host to another. Certainly
the system would not have the capabilty to treat both the same, and even
if it did, it would be unwise to program it to do so, because you might
well hit legitmate users in the crossfire.

: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. <:-)

If you did that, security tallies on any system that gets heavier than
usual decker traffic would get very high, very fast, resulting in host
shutdown and risk to normal users. As an answer to your question- no.
Obviously, I'm strongly convinced that the security tally applies to
individual deckers, and only succeses that the system gets against that
decker affect that deckers ST.


Mongoose

The Vortex- Give it a whirl!
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Chamber/5072/srmnvbr.htm

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Security tallies......was:Re: one or two VR2 questions (not, 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!