Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Doctor Doom <JCH8169@*****.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: Smartframes...
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 92 00:27:48 CET
Previously posted by JEW:


>>..until AI research is more thorough is no match for the spur of the moment
>> decision making that a live decker is able to perform.
>Not necessarily... sometimes the IC wins!

That is the point, I believe. Even something with the capacity for creativity
and flexibility that the human mind, i.e. a technomancer, can still be defeated
by Intrusion Countermeasures. Following this line of thought, how can a simple
smartframe be expected to win against IC, even with exact instructions, unless
it is on the complexity level of an AI?


Colonel Count von Hohenzollern und von Doom, DMSc, DSc, PhD.

Doom Technologies & Weapon Systems, Inc. & Dark Thought Publications
>>> Working together on solutions best left in the dark.
<<<
[ Doctor Doom : jch8169@********.tamu.edu ]
Message no. 2
From: Dave Sherohman <esper@*****.IMA.UMN.EDU>
Subject: Smart Frames
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1993 10:04:37 -0500
Program frames are semi-independent matrix applications that a decker can
haul into a system with him and then set free. They'll normally contain a
variety of standard programs, plus the neccessary code to move around the
matrix and (in the case of smart frames) some decision-making algorithms.
Dumb frames need to be controlled by the decker semi-directly, while a smart
frame can be given orders and will then go off and carry them out to the best
of its ability without additional intervention. (Frames function kinda like
drones for deckers...) Technically, frames are incapable of performing
system operations (no file transfers or erasing files or controlling
equipment, etc), but I ignore that restriction as it seems to have no basis
aside from game balance. Of course, if a frame grabs a file, that'll
increase its size accordingly, but that's no reason to disallow such a grab...
Another mod that I make to the frame rules is that I round their load normally
(ie <.5 down, >=.5 up instead of always up) so that you can have
"cosmetic"
do-nothing frames (50 MP or less) follow you around without sending your load
rating through the roof...

esper@***.umn.edu
Message no. 3
From: The Deb Decker <RJR96326@****.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject: Smart Frames
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1993 21:46:34 -0500
I think the point "esper" was trying to make with his batch file example
is that such operations (the manipulation of files) will likely be possible,
regardless of operating system. His was an example of how simple and vital
such programs and routines are.

The point about overloading a node is certainly correct but irrelevant.
For the situation that started this discussion (how to penetratea firewall
defense), the case you made against the frame is superfluous. I doubt a
decker would design a frame much more likely to overload a node than he and
his deck would. Furthermore, a frame is NECCESARY, because the whole point
of a firewall is that a the protected system is not directly connected to
the Matrix. The only access a decker has is by going to the physical site
and jacking in there.

Sending in a number of small frames would have to be done is succession; if threseparate
frames are in there, what's the point of splitting them?

And here's a defense I know some of you are already familiar with: The low
node. The sign-on node is a big, scary Orange or Red node with lots of
nasty IC. The node immediately after it is a blue or green node. Presumably,
the decker uses his full ratings to get past the red node. As soon as he moves
to the next node, it immediately slows down or crashes. This will counter both
deckers AND frames.

J Roberson
Message no. 4
From: "Jason Carter, Nightstalker" <CARTER@***.EDU>
Subject: Smart frames
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 11:02:07 -0700
There is nothing a frame, smart of dumb, can do that a decker cannot do better.
Also smartframes would not work against firewalls because they talk to the
cyberdeck of the decker constantly. For a frame to exist the deck must be
online.

See Ya in Shadows,
Jason J Carter
The Nightstalker
Message no. 5
From: Todd Montgomery <tmont@****.WVU.EDU>
Subject: Smart Frames
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 14:12:28 -0400
> From: RJR96326@****.UTULSA.EDU

> I think the point "esper" was trying to make with his batch file example
> is that such operations (the manipulation of files) will likely be possible,
> regardless of operating system. His was an example of how simple and vital
> such programs and routines are.

I agree with this. I was talking about the analogy between Frames and
.bat files.


> J Roberson

-- Quiktek
a.k.a. Todd Montgomery
tmont@****.wvu.edu
tmont@***.wvu.edu
un032507@*******.wvnet.edu
Message no. 6
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Smart frames
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 13:15:34 -0500
On Mon, 12 Jul 1993, Jason Carter, Nightstalker wrote:

> There is nothing a frame, smart of dumb, can do that a decker cannot do better.
> Also smartframes would not work against firewalls because they talk to the
> cyberdeck of the decker constantly. For a frame to exist the deck must be
> online.

Do they? I thought that smart frames were non-interactive in that they
detach and carry out orders.

I know in unix it is very easy to start a program, slam it into the
background, log out, and have it keep doing its thing.


{[> Robert A. Hayden ____ hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu <]}
{[> \ /__ aq650@****.INS.CWRU.Edu <]}
{[> \/ / <]}
{[> \/ #include <std_disclaimer.h> <]}
-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 0.3): GSS d- p--/-p+ c++ l++ m+/* s-/++ g+ w++ t++ r++ x+

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Random Thought:

Pecor's Health-Food Principle:
Never eat rutabaga on any day of the week that has a "y" in
it.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Message no. 7
From: Dave Sherohman <esper@*****.IMA.UMN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Smart Frames
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 13:01:30 -0500
>I think the point "esper" was trying to make with his batch file example
>is that such operations (the manipulation of files) will likely be possible,
>regardless of operating system. His was an example of how simple and vital
>such programs and routines are.

Exactly. (BTW, you can call me Dave or Mr. Sherohman if you don't like
"esper"... :)

> I doubt a
>decker would design a frame much more likely to overload a node than he and
>his deck would.

I might, simply because frames are inherently less effective than a decker
who generates the same load - they can't swap programs, vary their MPCP, or
otherwise decrease their load rating; they're less versatile (again because
they can't swap programs); and they don't have a hacking pool. (Plus they
aren't as smart...)

>And here's a defense I know some of you are already familiar with: The low
>node. The sign-on node is a big, scary Orange or Red node with lots of
>nasty IC. The node immediately after it is a blue or green node. Presumably,
>the decker uses his full ratings to get past the red node. As soon as he moves
>to the next node, it immediately slows down or crashes. This will counter both
>deckers AND frames.

Much fun! Of course, while this is fully effective against frames, a smart
decker will drop all unneccessary programs before leaving a node to protect
against this sort of thing...

esper@***.umn.edu
Message no. 8
From: Dave Sherohman <esper@*****.IMA.UMN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Smart frames
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 13:07:21 -0500
>Also smartframes would not work against firewalls because they talk to the
>cyberdeck of the decker constantly. For a frame to exist the deck must be
>online.

Huh? What's the basis for this? (I just checked, and VR doesn't say
anything of the sort - though it does have an example of a frame draggin
itself back to the decker whou launched it and giving a report just before
it falls apart; if they were in constant contact, why did the frame have
to return instead of just sending its report along this line of constant
communication?)

esper@***.umn.edu
Message no. 9
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Smart frames
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 13:25:21 -0500
On Mon, 12 Jul 1993 CARTER@***.EDU wrote:

> It is that easy to do with a program in unix, but you have to remember that the
> program is running on a computer, namely the unix machine your using. Well, the
> smartframe is running on a computer also, the cyberdeck. You take the cyberdeck
> off-line and the program no longer runs.
>
> The problem these people are running into talking about smartframes is the
> errorous belief that a smartframe is an independent matrix entity. A smartframe
> is just a dumb frame with limited AI capablities. It can react to situations
> that they are not programed for, but they are by no means independent or
> deckers.

But with a little fancy footwork, I can reattach that process to another
machine. I cannot believe that you couldn't in 2054 write a program,
inject it into a computer system, and then have it sit there while you log
out, perhaps watching the clock for a certain time to come around or
something.

We can do it today.

And _if_, as common believe here is, a deck is nothing more than a
filter/inturrpreter for the information, a client so to speak, then what
the hell uses load on the machine you are jacking into?

> P.S. So how many people have signed onto plot-d?

About 20

{[> Robert A. Hayden ____ hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu <]}
{[> \ /__ aq650@****.INS.CWRU.Edu <]}
{[> \/ / <]}
{[> \/ #include <std_disclaimer.h> <]}
-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 0.3): GSS d- p--/-p+ c++ l++ m+/* s-/++ g+ w++ t++ r++ x+

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Random Thought:

We're all sorry for the other guy when he loses his job to a machine.
But when it comes to your job -- that's different. And it always will
be different.
-- McCoy, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4729.4
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Message no. 10
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Smart frames (fwd)
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 13:29:22 -0500
Sent to only me by mistake


----- Forwarded Message -----
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 11:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: CARTER@***.EDU
To: hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
Subject: Re: Smart frames

>>Do they? I thought that smart frames were non-interactive in that they
>>detach and carry out orders.

>>I know in unix it is very easy to start a program, slam it into the
>>background, log out, and have it keep doing its thing.

It is that easy to do with a program in unix, but you have to remember that the
program is running on a computer, namely the unix machine your using. Well, the
smartframe is running on a computer also, the cyberdeck. You take the cyberdeck
off-line and the program no longer runs.

The problem these people are running into talking about smartframes is the
errorous belief that a smartframe is an independent matrix entity. A smartframe
is just a dumb frame with limited AI capablities. It can react to situations
that they are not programed for, but they are by no means independent or
deckers.

See Ya in Shadows,
Jason J Carter
The Nightstalker

P.S. So how many people have signed onto plot-d?

{[> Robert A. Hayden ____ hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu <]}
{[> \ /__ aq650@****.INS.CWRU.Edu <]}
{[> \/ / <]}
{[> \/ #include <std_disclaimer.h> <]}
-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 0.3): GSS d- p--/-p+ c++ l++ m+/* s-/++ g+ w++ t++ r++ x+

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Random Thought:

The sight of death frightens them [Earthers].
-- Kras the Klingon, "Friday's Child", stardate 3497.2
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Message no. 11
From: "Dylan Norhtup (PHY)" <norhtup@*****.CAS.USF.EDU>
Subject: Re: Smart frames (fwd)
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 19:29:20 -0400
> From:


CARTER@***.EDU
> Subject: Re: Smart frames
>
> >>I know in unix it is very easy to start a program, slam it into the
> >>background, log out, and have it keep doing its thing.
>
> It is that easy to do with a program in unix, but you have to remember that the
> program is running on a computer, namely the unix machine your using. Well, the
> smartframe is running on a computer also, the cyberdeck. You take the cyberdeck
> off-line and the program no longer runs.

Seems to me all you'd have to do is write the frame so that it runs on
the host machine. Copy it to the system. preform a system operation to
activate it and let it go. Have a subroutine in it that will have it
contact you and/or copy files to a specific place (Assuming that you are
letting frames preform system operations)

****************************************************************************
* Witty Remark * Dylan Northrup <norhtup@*****.cas.usf.edu> * This space *
* Here * (Yeah I know they spelled my name wrong) * for rent *
****************************************************************************
"And I can't explain a thing about her/Mirrorshades" --INSOC
Message no. 12
From: Galen Silversmith <galens@***.GWU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Smart frames
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 19:30:38 -0400
On Mon, 12 Jul 1993, Jason Carter, Nightstalker wrote:

> There is nothing a frame, smart of dumb, can do that a decker cannot do better.
> Also smartframes would not work against firewalls because they talk to the
> cyberdeck of the decker constantly. For a frame to exist the deck must be
> online.
>
Maybe in your game, but according to VR "Frames are viral-constructed
frameworks that allow multiple programs to maneuver and operate
seperately from the deck that launched the, They are self-maintaining
and may preform tasks and functions according to the operation
instructions the designer created." That would seem to say that there is
no need for a connection. Being a worm-type program, it will work itself
into the system and run itself, with no need for a connection. The
difference between smart and dumb frames is if you want the dumb frame to
do something different you need to tell it, while the smart frame can make
its own limited decisions, but neither >REQUIRE< a connection to the deck.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Galen Silversmith galens@***.gwu.edu
"If there's nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the
universe"-Dr. Beverly Crusher

"We're gonna need another cow!"-Molinar Shardik, by Elf Mathiew Sternberg
Message no. 13
From: Robert Watkins <bob@******.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Smart frames
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 15:44:19 +0930
>
>There is nothing a frame, smart of dumb, can do that a decker cannot do better.
>Also smartframes would not work against firewalls because they talk to the
>cyberdeck of the decker constantly. For a frame to exist the deck must be
>online.
>
>See Ya in Shadows,
>Jason J Carter
>The Nightstalker
>

Okay, I can see this, and can even think of a few reasons why it should be done
that way. But why can't a decker upload a frame into a datastore, and get the
host machine to run it?? Get around the problems with making system operations,
as native processes don't have to worry about them. A simple frame that just
looks at incoming files and does an evaluate on them wouldn't generate much
load, and any decker worth his salt can make it look like a legit process.

--
Robert Watkins
bob@******.cs.ntu.edu.au
************ It wouldn't be luck if you could get out of life alive. ***********
Message no. 14
From: Robert Watkins <bob@******.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: smart frames
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 15:56:47 +0930
The reason I can see why a frame would need your deck connected is simple: The
program is in YOUR memory, on YOUR computer. NOT in the system you are
currently trying to steal from. When you activate the frame, it can run around
by itself, if it's smart, and do all sorts of things that any old persona can
do, just not as well. But what happens to you if someone pulls your deck out of
the telecom port??

If you want your frame to work without your deck plugged in, you can do it by
uploading it to a different machine.


--
Robert Watkins
bob@******.cs.ntu.edu.au
************ It wouldn't be luck if you could get out of life alive. ***********
Message no. 15
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Smart Frames
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 02:11:45 +1100
Shadowdancer writes:

> Why not build the smartframe, then add KillJoy or Black Hammer
> instead of a regular attack program? You could also use the other
> programs(I think Beagle or something), and have a smartframe that
> tracks and kills. Real useful in those situations where many, many
> corp deckers are chasing your hoop.

Assuming that you could do this (I don't own VR) it would seem like a pretty
effective tactic. Be more useful than having PCs run the frames in my view
(though not as useful for keeping the rest of the party entertained of
course).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+(d) H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 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+

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Smart frames, 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!