Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unidirectional Datalines [was: Muscle Augmentation]
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 21:56:37 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 10:33 AM 10/2/98 -0400, Fixer wrote:
>->Let me see now. Muscle Rep/Aug & Essence, FAB-Netguns...I'm running
>->out of Shadowrun Paradoxes to be solved. Luckily for me, there's
still
>->the problem with getting the rules for unidirectional datalines to
>->mesh with the science in their description. :)
>
> Think about those modems that one transfers data out and the
other
>transfers data in... both CAN go both ways, but they usually dont.
Are we
>getting rid of paradoxes yet?

Do you own Neo-Anarchists' Guide to Real Life, where the concept of
unidirectional datalines were introduced? I have no quibble over the
science of it, by itself. My gripe is their rules for how decker icons
interact with these one way datalines-- the rules presented make
absolutely no sense, and even contridict themselves in places. The
paradox in in the implementation, not in the concept itself.

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

iQCVAwUBNhWETaPbvUVI86rNAQG4XwP+P68xWtmNzNJ2HkPh5Wjl+PapvgAxNw5c
ls4CuywA/NZyOVqnXzbYQWyeiagwMJgzzmOoqUjnTgFABRtABnzlo6awp9Er4VIF
WCEDCzutMhcPd9HJMShsijTkd1L7qhOXb1jo4oSmS4Yk9muFgzV3DtmMbCq2x+2o
Z173LNlUl/4=
=WjPM
-----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. 2
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Unidirectional Datalines [was: Muscle Augmentation]
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 08:36:10 -0400
On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, Paul Gettle wrote:

->-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
->
->At 10:33 AM 10/2/98 -0400, Fixer wrote:
->>->Let me see now. Muscle Rep/Aug & Essence, FAB-Netguns...I'm running
->>->out of Shadowrun Paradoxes to be solved. Luckily for me, there's
->still
->>->the problem with getting the rules for unidirectional datalines to
->>->mesh with the science in their description. :)
->>
->> Think about those modems that one transfers data out and the
->other
->>transfers data in... both CAN go both ways, but they usually dont.
->Are we
->>getting rid of paradoxes yet?
->
->Do you own Neo-Anarchists' Guide to Real Life, where the concept of
->unidirectional datalines were introduced? I have no quibble over the
->science of it, by itself. My gripe is their rules for how decker icons
->interact with these one way datalines-- the rules presented make
->absolutely no sense, and even contridict themselves in places. The
->paradox in in the implementation, not in the concept itself.

Yes, I do own NAGRL. I was also referring to the science aspect
of it with my description. As far as deckers are concerned, though, their
personas cannot travel down a uni-directional dataline unless it has a
dataline that can take the data OUT of the area 'protected' by the
unidirectional (IMO, not canon). A frame (or virus) could be sent down
the dataline but the simsense signal of the decker's icon wouldn't be able
to receive data from the other end of the unidirectional dataline and
would therefore not allow the decker to sense anything. I suppose they
could blindly walk in, suffering from severe sensory deprivation, activate
a frame or virus, then back out (essentially restoring their icon to the
node before the uni-line) but I wouldn't allow it. They still couldn't
get data out of it.

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. 3
From: Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Unidirectional Datalines [was: Muscle Augmentation]
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 08:48:21 -0400
On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 08:36:10AM -0400, Fixer wrote:
> Yes, I do own NAGRL. I was also referring to the science aspect
> of it with my description. As far as deckers are concerned, though, their
> personas cannot travel down a uni-directional dataline unless it has a
> dataline that can take the data OUT of the area 'protected' by the
> unidirectional (IMO, not canon). A frame (or virus) could be sent down
> the dataline but the simsense signal of the decker's icon wouldn't be able
> to receive data from the other end of the unidirectional dataline and
> would therefore not allow the decker to sense anything. I suppose they
> could blindly walk in, suffering from severe sensory deprivation, activate
> a frame or virus, then back out (essentially restoring their icon to the
> node before the uni-line) but I wouldn't allow it. They still couldn't
> get data out of it.

Well, I /don't/ have NAGRL, but let me offer two very different
examples of a uni-directional dataline from real life.
First: Batch processing. This is a chute you dump a program down.
the machine on the other end puts your program in a queue, and eventually
executes it (when it's your turn). The output is returned to you via
another route - possibly email, or it could be a hardcopy printout waiting
for you at your desk. This is how supercomputers are generally run - their
cycles are too valuable to waste on silly things like interactive processing,
so a workstation handles accepting requests, and all the supercomputer does
is process, process, process. This sort of link you could send a frame down,
because the machine on the other end is /expecting/ an executable object.
You couldn't, however, deck down it.
Second: Data depository. This is essentially a data drop-box. All
it does is sit and wait for data, and then file it when it receives it.
There is no interaction, and there is no execution - you can't even send
it a frame, because it'll just be treated as data and stored in a database
somewhere rather than being run. It's a trapdoor. This is probably how
McHugh's franchises report their receipts to the central office at the
end of the day...and other, more useful and interesting remote stations
would use the same process. Security cameras, for instance - sorry, it may
be wired to the security system, but that's a one-way link. Possibly a
pair of one-way links, if the central system can rotate the camera or something
like that, but still not something you can deck through.

Don't know if that'll help or not.

--Sean
--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc 4
Message no. 4
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unidirectional Datalines [was: Muscle Augmentation]
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 09:57:55 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 08:36 AM 10/5/98 -0400, Fixer wrote:
>As far as deckers are concerned, though, their
>personas cannot travel down a uni-directional dataline unless it has
a
>dataline that can take the data OUT of the area 'protected' by the
>unidirectional (IMO, not canon).

Definately not cannon. System example B on p. 79, and the descriptive
text above it, would tend to directly contridict it. Though, the way
you describe it is the only sensible way to run it. I'd be mean and
force the decker to perform a "redirect datatrail" operation before
they could get their simsense feed restored though.

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?

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

iQCVAwUBNhjQX6PbvUVI86rNAQEDpQP/cwUhqejCeGI4UJCiK+TIsBX9DnpUaXU6
tHRlqgu3UQjfg0cO9fjpq8MANggjFP5YKzdxIqP02MU4qhXiJUTakoiYn85O/eJw
UiQPTqj3DUBG6AeGdif8SCqvsgk1JUrR4kjTCE0RvIpv31txPmayYNWRFm0MbWVK
dcTM9RMayGs=
=m37D
-----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: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Unidirectional Datalines [was: Muscle Augmentation]
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 07:56:52 -0400
On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Paul Gettle wrote:

->-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
->
->At 08:36 AM 10/5/98 -0400, Fixer wrote:
->>As far as deckers are concerned, though, their
->>personas cannot travel down a uni-directional dataline unless it has
->a
->>dataline that can take the data OUT of the area 'protected' by the
->>unidirectional (IMO, not canon).
->
->Definately not cannon. System example B on p. 79, and the descriptive
->text above it, would tend to directly contridict it. Though, the way
->you describe it is the only sensible way to run it. I'd be mean and
->force the decker to perform a "redirect datatrail" operation before
->they could get their simsense feed restored though.

Well, canon be damned if it directly contradicts itself. It says
deckers interpret the matrix by interpreting the signals received by the
MPCP from the contructs in the matrix. If you go down a uni-directional
dataline, that construct won't be sending any signal. Hmmmm.. idea.

->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
unless they want deckers to go only on a particular path (laden with IC)
to get through the system and have it all circle around in a loop (like a
Token Ring of sorts).
Anyway, I had an idea, what is 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.

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. 6
From: Micheal Feeney <Starrngr@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Unidirectional Datalines [was: Muscle Augmentation]
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:27:45 EDT
In a message dated 98-10-06 07:48:29 EDT, you write:

<< Anyway, I had an idea, what is 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. >>

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. Even Torti use the same visual imagery as everyone else,
they just dont have the DNI that allows deckers their blasing speed.
Message no. 7
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Unidirectional Datalines [was: Muscle Augmentation]
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:56:31 -0400
On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Micheal Feeney wrote:

->In a message dated 98-10-06 07:48:29 EDT, you write:
->
-><< Anyway, I had an idea, what is 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. >>
->
->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. Even Torti use the same visual imagery as everyone else,
->they just dont have the DNI that allows deckers their blasing speed.

Ok, how about a system that no users are SUPPOSED to work in? A
pure processing or ultra-secure data storage environment? No more than
text input (going back to the old days), perhaps?

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. 8
From: Micheal Feeney <Starrngr@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Unidirectional Datalines [was: Muscle Augmentation]
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:22:54 EDT
In a message dated 98-10-06 12:48:41 EDT, you write:

<< Ok, how about a system that no users are SUPPOSED to work in? A
pure processing or ultra-secure data storage environment? No more than
text input (going back to the old days), perhaps? >>

Not really any such thing. If data is stored, its because it needs to be
accessed. Also, sysops need to be able to duck in and check that data
integrity is still intact from time to time.

I suppose if you really wanted to come up with something... Ok, here is the
thought. You have a knowbot at a SAN who's job is to take your secure data
request (after confirming you have the right to access the data) and sends it
down a one way link to another knowbot who performs the actual search and
retreaval from the secure database and then sends the results from the query
op back to the caller via a second uni directional line. A Decker could still
get in, but it would be a bitch and a half cause he has to deal with two
knowbots who are probobly also programed to deal with requests from UA users
with nasty effects, plus if you wanted to actually plunder the database in
person you would have to make a blind jump and hope you could sleaze the other
SAN into letting you use the outgoing line to send back your imagery.... But
once that was done, you would still see the constructs as normal, just that
there are no other user icons poking around in the area.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Unidirectional Datalines [was: Muscle Augmentation], 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!