[All4BigGuns]

Which makes sense...

No. No it doesn't in any way. How does it make sense for security software to be designed with such an obvious loophole intrinsic to it?

...and it helps make things more about the characters and less about the gear.

And this...geez, there was absolutely no reason for things to be taken down this ludicrous road. The character with the better gear should be better 9 times out of 10 than the one that doesn't have it. Peoples using iron in ages past supplanted peoples using bronze because of better equipment. Those same peoples were supplanted by those using steel later on for the same reason, and once firearms came into being, the peoples who developed those first were more successful than those without. Better gear is just better. Period.

[Insaniac99]

Which makes sense...

No. No it doesn't in any way. How does it make sense for security software to be designed with such an obvious loophole intrinsic to it?

...and it helps make things more about the characters and less about the gear.

And this...geez, there was absolutely no reason for things to be taken down this ludicrous road. The character with the better gear should be better 9 times out of 10 than the one that doesn't have it. Peoples using iron in ages past supplanted peoples using bronze because of better equipment. Those same peoples were supplanted by those using steel later on for the same reason, and once firearms came into being, the peoples who developed those first were more successful than those without. Better gear is just better. Period.

I'm a software engineer in real life and have done a lot of IT work; the Users are always the weakest link.  They leave passwords laying around, they rotate the same X passwords, they use mathematically simple passwords that the stupid password filters think is strong, they leave accounts logged in, they find holes in security then make them worse for their convenience, they don't update software unless forced, they use passwords that anyone and their brother can guess ( look at this for example. ), they tell secrets to people who charm them, and they download BS junk that creates more security holes.

So yeah, I'm okay with the last user ruining the careful work that the IT guy set up because sadly it is all too true.

[RHat]

No. No it doesn't in any way. How does it make sense for security software to be designed with such an obvious loophole intrinsic to it?

Because it's impossible for it not to be.  No matter how good and how well designed the security software, user action can and very often will compromise security.

[Mara]

No. No it doesn't in any way. How does it make sense for security software to be designed with such an obvious loophole intrinsic to it?

Because it's impossible for it not to be.  No matter how good and how well designed the security software, user action can and very often will compromise security.

Actually, it is possible. However, it is impossible if the computer is intended to be accessed by people outside of very strict controls.
Punchcard computers were more secure then anything we can do today.

[Insaniac99]

No. No it doesn't in any way. How does it make sense for security software to be designed with such an obvious loophole intrinsic to it?

Because it's impossible for it not to be.  No matter how good and how well designed the security software, user action can and very often will compromise security.

Actually, it is possible. However, it is impossible if the computer is intended to be accessed by people outside of very strict controls.
Punchcard computers were more secure then anything we can do today.

Yes, and no...  They were more susceptible to certain types of vulnerabilities, but the physical access restriction was the best thing for security.  Even now, we do have computers in locked and guarded rooms, that don't have access to the internet when we are really serious about security. 

[JackVII]

I'd just like to say that I posted the original question that sparked this in hopes that CGL would consider putting it into the FAQ. If y'all want to continue the conversation elsewhere, a new thread would be a great idea.

[Namikaze]

I would argue that if the players want to exploit the human element of my NPCs, they need to interact with the NPCs.  If someone has redundant passwords, then they need to find a weaker device and grab the password from it.  If there's a chance they can get the person to give them access via some means - well that's even better.

Even though the rules state otherwise, I think it's better for roleplaying, better for mechanics, and better for bookkeeping if the Willpower is taken out of the unmanned devices equation.

[JackVII]

Q: Is the +3 Drain Value penalty for Reckless Spellcasting applied as part of the Drain Value calculation (e.g F-3+3)? Due to the minimum drain value clause, there is a distinction for many spells when cast at a lower force.

[Michael Chandra]

((Given how it's listed as +3 DV in Step 4, then step 6 says you use the calculation and such but can't go below 2, I think the +3 applies before, not after, the minimum drain.))

[JackVII]

Good call, thanks Michael! My brain is absolutely not working this morning.

[tasti man LH]

Can hackers share their illegal marks with another friendly Matrix user? Or do those marks only work for the hacker that put them there?

If they can't, then I shall be very sad that riggers can't do drone hijackings anymore...

[Namikaze]

There's nothing in the rules currently that indicates that tthe marks transfer.  This might be something that changes with Data Trails.

[Michael Chandra]

Can hackers share their illegal marks with another friendly Matrix user? Or do those marks only work for the hacker that put them there?

Marks cannot be shared.

[tasti man LH]

...ugh.

Well, unless if Data Trails or Rigger 5 changes something, say goodbye to drone hijacking for 5th, I guess!!

[MisterNix]

This is where having a technomancer doing puppeteer can be handy, forcing the device to "Invite marks from Personas X, Y, and Z for the next 1 hour" is VERY handy