Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Craig J Wilhelm Jr <craigjwjr@******.ORG>
Subject: unidirectional datalines
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 05:15:53 -0400
Paul Gettle wrote
>Wow. A -Workable- solution to the FAB net problem. Now if someone
>could make a decent explanation for unidirectional datalines from
>Neo-A's Guide to Real Life.

Unidirectional FO cable has been around for something like 5 years. The
send end of the cable has a one-way window mirror type thing. Signal can
go out but incomming gets physically bounced back. I forget the *exact*
principal as well as where I read it (some science mag) so don't take my
word for it.
--
Craig "Knee Deep in the Blood of Swine" Wilhelm
Afterlife Incorperated,
Quality Carnage at Affordable Prices.
UIN: 1864690
-------------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
v3.12
GAT/$ 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+(Q2++) G++ e++ h* r y++**
--------------END GEEK CODE BLOCK--------------
Message no. 2
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: unidirectional datalines
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 13:17:20 +0100
And verily, did Craig J Wilhelm Jr hastily scribble thusly...
|
|Paul Gettle wrote
|>Wow. A -Workable- solution to the FAB net problem. Now if someone
|>could make a decent explanation for unidirectional datalines from
|>Neo-A's Guide to Real Life.
|
| Unidirectional FO cable has been around for something like 5 years. The
|send end of the cable has a one-way window mirror type thing. Signal can
|go out but incomming gets physically bounced back. I forget the *exact*
|principal as well as where I read it (some science mag) so don't take my
|word for it.

All I'd like to say is.... Why bother?
If you don't want to send or receive data at one end of a dataline, just
exclude the transmit/detect side of the circuitry. Simple, and cost
effective. You can't read someones data if they've not got a laser on the
end to send the data down after all....

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 3
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unidirectional Datalines
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 21:02:31 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 12:27 PM 10/6/98 -0400, Micheal wrote:
>That is a contradiction in terms Fixer. The very nature of the
matrix means
>that the DECK, with its ASIST circuits, provides most of the imaging
unless
>your in a sculpted system or a UV area. And no one in thier right
mind would
>sculpt a system to look like "nothing" because it would be impossible
for the
>people to work in.

That's the point. You put this Null Sculpted imagery into areas where
people won't be working, and more importantly, where you specifically
want to make it hard to acompish anything.

Places like the Data Storage Host where the backups of all the
sensitve corporate information is stored. Under standard operating
conditions, that part of the corp's matrix will never be touched by
decker or tortise jockey. The file operations are performed by
automated programs. It would make sense to use sculpted imagery
intended to hinder ilicit tampering, even if it would inconvience
legitimate users, because for this host, there aren't supposed to be
any legitimate users, most of the time.

If the operating conditions deviate from the day to day routine, if
one of the backups needs to be restored, or matinence coding needs to
be performed on the host, then the Null Sculpted imagery can be taken
down, and replaced with something more plesant to work in.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNhq9iqPbvUVI86rNAQEetAQAh6xq1nE2wgRRIdj69AYTzp4JicENUDIT
0g9FSR34iz6LW27z6teSceMCmzfYjKxHVm7U4ZAI9N82EuI2ArhxiI02jm9rGY9W
wg4hN3F2q+QhE9oitGK17nryIEyuIl0JS6lK/C7Jy93gxakeAdxuoS6So4NYkoVg
g2S2T3EfPTo=
TXQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 4
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unidirectional Datalines
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:37:44 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 07:56 AM 10/6/98 -0400, Fixer wrote:
> Well, canon be damned if it directly contradicts itself.

I believe that was my whole point. :)
After all, this whole thread started when I refered to this as the one
SR Paradox I could always count on to be there, even when the other
paradoxes fell.

>->The question remains though: why would any system designer go to
the
>->expense of implementing one way datalines, if there's a "back door"
>->datapath that would be a gaping security hole?
>
> They wouldn't, or, at least, I don't let them be that stupid

Usually the way I run it, is that if there is a "Back Door", it
consists of datalines that are normally "switched off", preventing
data from traveling between hosts. The "Back Door" can be opened by
swtiching on the datalines, if the decker's reached the master host
for the system (or the CPU node if you're still running VR1.0), but
the system is automatically placed on a state of passive alert for the
duration that those datalines are open.


> Anyway, I had an idea, what if a matrix construct's Matrix
>'appearance' is nothing? As in, you enter the system and all the
>constructs are voids? Sensory deprevation for deckers. Obviously
this
>would only be for systems where deckers are not expected (or desired)
to
>go, as a tortoise user wouldn't really notice the difference.

This is to trick the decker into thinking they've gone down a one way
dataline and lost their simsense and data feeds from the icon? That's
nice, but couldn't the decker just perform an Analyze Host operation
and find out "this isn't really an empty void, it just looks like
one?"

And anyway, to make the illusion of having gone down a one way
dataline complete, I would imagine that this could, and most likely
should be implimented on the tortise level too. It'd have to be set up
to resemble a "no echo from remote host" situation.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNhq3v6PbvUVI86rNAQE5hwQAsMiF3geJOEfh95QBqD0X5YVpy8MJtwUB
Hnshv2rBjYmRFbKKbl04b+G+PQPvTBFCg8WTaaQZhqSm3yhwWYghgUiQv3vM3wHB
g/ugFIR2wO2e60IXD/+o0O6fIaNV94GSacadq14YGX23g+1RD1NmbgChR3a2BW7j
m7XEfHzdKGw=
=PNBX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 5
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Unidirectional Datalines
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 01:29:48 -0400
At 08:37 PM 10-6-98 -0400, you wrote:
>At 07:56 AM 10/6/98 -0400, Fixer wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I had an idea, what if a matrix construct's Matrix
>>'appearance' is nothing? As in, you enter the system and all the
>>constructs are voids? Sensory deprevation for deckers. Obviously this
>>would only be for systems where deckers are not expected (or desired) to
>>go, as a tortoise user wouldn't really notice the difference.
>
>This is to trick the decker into thinking they've gone down a one way
>dataline and lost their simsense and data feeds from the icon? That's
>nice, but couldn't the decker just perform an Analyze Host operation
>and find out "this isn't really an empty void, it just looks like
>one?"
>
>And anyway, to make the illusion of having gone down a one way
>dataline complete, I would imagine that this could, and most likely
>should be implimented on the tortise level too. It'd have to be set up
>to resemble a "no echo from remote host" situation.
>--
> -- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)

Actually, I've also considered the "dark host" gambit. Except that in my
implementation the host goes on active alert and activates all IC when an
icon comes into the system broadcasting ASIST iconography code. (Regular
data traffic routed to that host is stripped of the ASIST segment from the
data packets.) Routine maintenance is done through <gasp!> a text-based
interface, just like in the bad old days of the 20th century. When more
extensive system work has to be done, the host is taken off the matrix and
the virtual environment is reactivated.

Put something like this in a game, and your runners have two choices. They
can either try to penetrate the site during a maint. down-cycle and plug
their decker in, or they can try to find a decker that can work in machine
code like the hackers of yore.

Starjammer | Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem.
starjammer@**********.com | "The one hope of the doomed is not to hope
Marietta, GA | for safety." --Virgil, The Aeneid
Message no. 6
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Unidirectional Datalines
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 07:00:56 -0400
On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Paul Gettle wrote:

->-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
->
<snippity snip>
->> Anyway, I had an idea, what if a matrix construct's Matrix
->>'appearance' is nothing? As in, you enter the system and all the
->>constructs are voids? Sensory deprevation for deckers. Obviously
->this
->>would only be for systems where deckers are not expected (or desired)
->to
->>go, as a tortoise user wouldn't really notice the difference.
->
->This is to trick the decker into thinking they've gone down a one way
->dataline and lost their simsense and data feeds from the icon? That's
->nice, but couldn't the decker just perform an Analyze Host operation
->and find out "this isn't really an empty void, it just looks like
->one?"

Actually, I was thinking along different lines but got vetoed.
And the 'Analyze Host' operation would still work, but they wouldn't have
anything to work with. It's more of a role-playing effect than a game
mechanic effect.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 7
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unidirectional Datalines
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:51:02 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 07:00 AM 10/7/98 -0400, Fixer wrote:
> Actually, I was thinking along different lines but got
vetoed.
>And the 'Analyze Host' operation would still work, but they wouldn't
have
>anything to work with. It's more of a role-playing effect than a
game
>mechanic effect.

Oh, it could be a game mechanic effect. Just apply the standard
penalties for "working against the metaphor of a sculpted host", but
apply them to anything the decker tries to do. The metaphor in this
case is "No, there's not really a host here".

I could even see the wageslaves who work with that corp's matrix
refering to that host as "The Local Black Hole" or "The Black Box".

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNhup+6PbvUVI86rNAQHp5gQAkLbMW3NDv+jy+7CJC4Fh3O8pz3YRjYkD
0i+nT1qartsfYvV9aBJCXkMU7sjeWDvfEhJjMGx+2RGrBhzhZSp+KtlySIIomNgw
zbxUkVmhsV13+fPbX8vnDkv3tsB/BIvbpt6VomBjR6lmUSiKl+4/Af0IshWEImzw
TqdPbfh1TIc=
=1u1Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Unidirectional Datalines, 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!