Author Topic: Rating + Firewall (or just Firewall)?  (Read 152 times)

petertohen

  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Rating + Firewall (or just Firewall)?
« on: (10:23:17/11-07-17) »
Say I've got a commlink in my pocket with wireless on. I've got no gear feeding me info: no glasses, earbuds, etc. Would I still roll Willpower + Firewall to defend against someone trying to hack me or would I roll Device Rating + Firewall (or just Firewall)?
https://www.pcmag.com/article/313986/the-best-free-firewalls

Officerzan

  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Rating + Firewall (or just Firewall)?
« Reply #1 on: (11:07:19/11-07-17) »
Doesn't matter if you are currently using it or not. As long as it's something you (assuming you are the owner) use on a regular basis, it is always Intuition/Willpower + Firewall. Remember Brute Force is against Willpower and Hack on The Fly is against Intuition.

If it is a completely unattended device that the Owner doesn't mess with regulalry, than it is Device Rating + Firewall.
« Last Edit: (11:11:02/11-07-17) by Officerzan »

Hobbes

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • *
  • Posts: 1726
Re: Rating + Firewall (or just Firewall)?
« Reply #2 on: (13:59:11/11-07-17) »
"Unattended" is GM call.  There isn't RAW on when a device becomes "Unattended".  Is the wage slaves commuter vehicle sitting in a parking garage unattended?  The car is linked to his Commlink, but the car has been sitting there for hours with the owner hundreds of meters away.

It gets even goofier when you have someone with a Commlink that has a higher rating then their Logic or Intuition.  Which is most every experienced Shadowrunner once they upgrade to a better Commlink.

Officerzan

  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Rating + Firewall (or just Firewall)?
« Reply #3 on: (14:15:14/11-07-17) »
Yes, the car in both examples you listed would be "attended," by most GMs because the owner's habits and settings are affecting it'a vulnerability.

"Even if she isnít currently defending or even interacting with the device, her previous interactions and settings affect the defense test." - CRB 237

Everything is GM discretion, but for the most part if it is something logged into and messed with on a regular basis, it uses the Owner's attribute. If it's a set and forget thing like a maglock you use the rating. However, if the Owner constantly messes with the settings of the locks and such (maybe a security expert in a facility making sure everything is up to date) then that may call for the Owner's attribute.

Yes, this runs into issues with sometimes a device being better off left alone. But that's not "goofy" at all. As someone who worked in IT for sometime, do you know how many idiotic things users do to compromise their security because, "well, I just like things that way," or something like, "It keeps trying to update but I hate how long it takes so i just disabled them!" How many gamers disable their firewalls because forwarding ports is too complicated for them? We don't call them ID-10T errors for nothing. Haha.
« Last Edit: (14:25:40/11-07-17) by Officerzan »

Hobbes

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • *
  • Posts: 1726
Re: Rating + Firewall (or just Firewall)?
« Reply #4 on: (17:11:10/11-07-17) »
Yes, the car in both examples you listed would be "attended," by most GMs because the owner's habits and settings are affecting it'a vulnerability.

"Even if she isnít currently defending or even interacting with the device, her previous interactions and settings affect the defense test." - CRB 237


All devices are attended at some point, even if only at the point of ownership transfer.  If you leave your Commlink on the counter for an hour is it unattended?  Probably not.  If you leave a back up Commlink in a safe for a year is it unattended?  Maybe?  10 Years?  Some time in-between an hour and a decade a device changes from Attended to Unattended.  No RAW on when that is, so it's a GM call. 

Many characters are better off using the device rating of a good Commlink (if only by a couple dice) rather than their own stats.  Why does a good Commlink becomes less secure because you've been texting/calling on it?

IMO 'tis a silly distinction to make, it should be simply use the higher of the two, no guesswork needed.  Either way if its a successful Attack action or a failed Sleaze action the owner gets notified and now the device is probably "Attended". 

Officerzan

  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Rating + Firewall (or just Firewall)?
« Reply #5 on: (19:17:08/11-07-17) »
*snip*
No RAW on when that is, so it's a GM call.
You do know we are saying the same thing right? GM discretion, GM call, whatever.
Quote
Many characters are better off using the device rating of a good Commlink (if only by a couple dice) rather than their own stats.  Why does a good Commlink becomes less secure because you've been texting/calling on it?
Because they are not just texting/calling. They are personalizing them, browsing "sites," slotting chips, playing games, etc. Just like my phone is a lot more secure than the guy who deleted his anti-malware to make more room for porn.

Quote
IMO 'tis a silly distinction to make, it should be simply use the higher of the two, no guesswork needed.  Either way if its a successful Attack action or a failed Sleaze action the owner gets notified and now the device is probably "Attended".
I agree, it IS a silly distinction to make. That is why most GMs I know use Attribute + Firewall on people's possessions and Device + Firewall on everything else.


Alas, I'm not going to argue what a GM should do. The OP asked a question and I answered what RAW states. Done. :)

Quatar

  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Re: Rating + Firewall (or just Firewall)?
« Reply #6 on: (10:17:27/11-08-17) »
Many characters are better off using the device rating of a good Commlink (if only by a couple dice) rather than their own stats.  Why does a good Commlink becomes less secure because you've been texting/calling on it?
Well... a commlink by itself will not react to an email "Your P2.1 account has been hacked! Please follow this link and enter your account details to proof that you are you!" while someone with Intuition 2 just might...

Quote
IMO 'tis a silly distinction to make, it should be simply use the higher of the two, no guesswork needed.  Either way if its a successful Attack action or a failed Sleaze action the owner gets notified and now the device is probably "Attended".
Most GMs I know go with "just use the higher of the two".

It also makes sense, with the above example, a device rating 7 commlink would realize that as a phishing attempt and simply move the whole email to the spamfolder and not even show it to the dumb user, or at least mark it with a big "Warning! Do not click!" message, or something.