| From: | "David M Girardot (Girardot, David)" <GIRARDOT@********.BITNET> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Forging Time/Date Stamps (Long) |
| Date: | Wed, 21 Oct 92 16:34:12 edt |
>>>>>[ Okay ya lamerz. Who sez us old timers can't be K-rad kewl with the
rest of yas. So here's an excerpt from the latest phrack, *not* available at
yer favorite corp elec-bulletin, about how ya don't have ta follow da lame
corp policy of dem stoopid time/date stamps. For some of yas dis'll be like
Xmastime, you'll get dat warm feeling like we did back in '83 (that's, 19-83)
when we discovered sendmail. ]<<<<<<
-- Samurai Electricity
*** DCC Channel Open
*** Transmitting
*** ...1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...0
*** Transmission complete. Transaction Logged (12:03:33/2-31-53)
*** Invalid Date Error
-- Override --
*** Scan mode activated...
>>>>>>[ ...with our policy of providing you, the decker, with the very
latest
in personal privacy technology I have written this article to reveal once and
for all how to escape the PhoneNet's tiresome time/date stamps.
First, some background. The time/date stamps go back to security issues
before even the great Matrix virus that crippled the first network. Back then
there was no real way to validate the identity and/or veracity of the
electronic modes of communication. The first incarnation of the time/date
stamps occured with the use of the private/public key cryptographical methods.
Eventually, though, it was clear that there needed to be some standard way of
identifying users with a clear electronic signature that would be difficult to
forge. Thus, when the first worldwide network was designed, the crude
time/date stamps were hard-wired into its infrastructure.
Nowadays, when any bit of data enters the matrix it is time/date stamped by
the Phone/Net infrastructure, and checked and re-checked with special self-
correcting algorhythms by each node the data passed through. Indeed, this
process produces the Link from the decker's persona to his physical entry-
point into the matrix (the selfsame Link that the trace family of IC is so
fond of).
Now then, the conventional wisdom is that because these time/date stamps are
so deeply entrenched into the basic operations of the matrix that it is simply
impossible to defeat. This is what the corporations would like you to think.
The fact is that hacking the stamps is simply difficult.
The weakness of the system is the redundancy checking that goes on after you
enter a new node -- that is, a "trace" must occur back to the original entry
point and a new "stamp" applied on top of the old one. However, as any decker
knows, his "Link" to his entry point is not a literal link but a virtual one
... in other words, it is a not a rigid sequence from origin to present point,
but the data packets flowing through it take the fastest path dictated between
the two points. In other words, if a decker has gone through Nodes A, B, C,
and D to reach node E; his datapath will include these nodes plus any other
nodes the data travels through at any given nanosecond. So, while our decker
was at point C his Link path might have read: A, B, C it could read
A,B,C,N,P,Q,D when he travels to point D. The nodes N, P, and Q though not
physically visited by the decker are visited by the datastream link from the
decker to his origin point.
Confusing? Well it gets even more complicated. You see, the Link path
differentiate between "real" link nodes (the ones the decker's persona has
actually travelled through) and "gateway" nodes (the ones the link datastream
takes for efficiency's sake.) So in the original example the the Link path
would really be something like A,B,C (N,P,Q), D.
Okay, getting around the time/date stamps used to be pretty easy. All you did
was modify your relocate program to "piggy back" on the Link-path and merrily
send it through millions of "gateway" nodes. One of two things would happen:
the link-path would get so long that it would actually be "broken" -- in other
words your post would never get the time/date stamp added because the link path
was so long. The other thing that would happen, if you wrote a really good
relocate, was that the link-path would come out as total garbage, or better
yet, someone *elses's* link path.
Unfortunately the corps instituted RFC 931, a security measure, that added a
subroutine to the algorhythm to limit the link-path length by number of gateway
nodes. So you couldn't trash the path anymore by filling it with tons of
garbage. That was util a friend of mine realized that the subroutine would
always cound gateway nodes of the same name as the same nodes. He developed a
technique that would ping-pong the link-path between two or three nodes, back
and forth, ad infinitum. This would really phuck the link path and made
hacking the time-date stamps a real breeze. He also discovered that while the
link-path was ping-ponging you could get it up to a good ten or twelve million
teratocycles and that while this was going on, you could input any time/date
stamp you pleased.
So that's how easy it is. But what's the catch? The catch is that you *need*
a link path. Your link is what allows you to control your persona from your,
deck chummer. If you really did pingpong your path even a couple hundred
thousand teratocycles youd have a response slower than the slowest turtle,
nearly an eighth of a second delay for each keypress. Nope, while you've
phucker your linkpath to hack the time/date stamping you need to hack yourself
a real linkpath so you can go merrily about your business.
The procedure is, again, a modified relocate program. There are two catches,
however. One is that this program is about as degradable as it gets. Each
combat round, yes round, it loses one point of rating ... UNLESS the program is
being hacked on the fly. Also, maintaining the link through multiple grids is
difficult, so each grid change (for example LTG to RTG) requires one die per
threshold of the grid (1 for blue, 2 for green, and so on). The rating of the
link program must exceed the security rating of the current node, and *each*
node passed through. For instance, if you need to maintain a link through a
red-5 node you need to have a Link-6 running. The other bad news is that
maintaining the link is rather hard on the deck and lowers the response rating
by one. (Yes, that means you must have at least Response-1 to run the
program.)
Example: BlackBeard has 23 dice in his hacking pool and a Fuchi-CYber-4 with
Response +2. He is maintaining a link from his apartement in Seattle to a
Shadowlands based in a corp computer in a different RTG. The inter-grid nodes
are all green so there's six dice gone from the pool to maintain them.
BlackBeard has passed through three nodes in the corp computer to the
shadowlands in one of the datastores (the Orange-5 SAN, the Green-3 SPU, and
the Red-3 CPU). He has to allocate another 12 dice from his pool for a Link-6
capable of getting through the rating-5 of the SAN. 15 dice in all are
allocated to the pool... bringing him down to a measly 8 dice ... and don't
forget his Response is only +1 while his deck runs the link.
Disengaging a link while in the matrix is tricky, because you have to
re-connect to the "real" link-path you've been pingponging all over creation.
Make a computer skill test against a target of the number of twice the minutes
the link has been ping-ponging. You must get a number of successes equal to
the threshold of the highest security rating of the nodes you've been through.
(So in blackbeard's case, if he'd been ping-ponging his link for 5 minutes
while in the shadowlands he'd need to get at least 2 successes against a target
number of 10). The base time for re-establishing a link is 1 minute, divided
by the number of successes. Until the link is re-established, the decker has a
reaction of 0 (and is allowed no modifiers) and always acts last in the round
with his actions taking place at the end of the NEXT round. This slowdown
affects ALL actions, INCLUDING jacking out.
Well, I told you the procedure wasn't easy. But at least you know it's
possible. Down with IC! Free data for all! Sayonara. ]<<<<<<
-- NightWind (Field To Large)
>>>>>>[ Yes, kiddies, if you gain control of a lamer's deck you *can*
disconnect him from his link. A real nasty trick to play on your enemies!
]<<<<<<
-- BlackBeard (Null)
Disconnecting another decker from his deck isn't easy. The first step involves
hacking a "trace" construct and the second winning a resisted computer test
against the enemy decker to force them to "ping-pong" their own link.
--David
<- <- <- * * * T * O * G * * * -> -> ->
Girardot@*********.edu Girardot@*******.bitnet
-*-
"For after all, as great scientists have said and as all children
know, it is above all by the imagination that we achieve perception,
and compassion, and hope." --Ursula K. LeGuin
