[Dreamwalker]

Hoi,

I'm trying to understand the difference between admin access gained from the backdoor entry and brute force matrix actions. While the (prior) section on "User and Admin Access" indicates that hacking gives you an illicit account, backdoor entry seems to provide legal access. Specifically, the backdoor entry description states:

If the test is successful, you gain Admin access to the target, and it does not count as illegal Admin access (though taking illegal Matrix Actions will still increase your Overwatch Score).

Naturally, brute force triggers alerts - this much is clear. Aside from that, is there any rule-mechanical difference between taking matrix actions with admin access from backdoor entry in comparison to brute force? Matrix actions seem to be opposed in the same way and overwatch score appears to accumulate under the same conditions.

[Xenon]

When you brute force through the main gate your overwatch score will automatically increase each combat turn (this is the violent and fast approach).

When you sneak in through the back door your overwatch score will not automatically increase each combat turn (this is the stealthy and slow approach).

[Dreamwalker]

Thanks for pointing that out. I missed/forgot the subtle difference between "illicit" and "illegal" regarding OS accumulation over time.

So now it is safe to assume that there are (at least) three distinct modes:

• Illicit and illegal
• Illicit and legal
• Non-illicit and legal

I can't help but wonder: Based on what observations / indicators a host distinguishes between 2. and 3.? It appears a host must be able to make this distinction, since otherwise one of the following two conditions would hold:

• Legal matrix actions under illicit but legal access would be unopposed.
• Legal matrix actions under non-illicit and legal access would be opposed.

To my knowledge, a host still gets to oppose legal matrix actions in SR6 even after gaining access through a backdoor entry. Consequently, the first would not be the case. The latter is infeasible, since it would turn usability for normal, honest-to-whomever users to ash (even on moderately secure hosts). Having to continuously compete against a hosts firewall in normal day-to-day operations is simply impractical. So, assuming the illicit/non-illicit part can be inferred, why would a host not immediately revoke legal access of an illicit account?

Am I making a faulty assumption or am I missing something?

[Banshee]

I would say your just making it way more difficult than it needs to be and are making inferences that are not in the rules.

There are 2 ways to hack a network. Brute force which is "loud and noisy" where everything you do increases OS and then there is Backdoor which "slow and quiet" which is much harder for the network to detect so only the actions you take increase your OS. In all cases the network does recognize you as unauthorized user and is trying to block your actions and trying to kick you out.

[MercilessMing]

So now it is safe to assume that there are (at least) three distinct modes:
Illicit and illegal
Illicit and legal
Non-illicit and legal

Any access you got via Cracking is illicit and illegal.  Even if you used a backdoor, the patrol IC is going to see you as an illegal user.  But I agree the wording in the book you quoted does make it sound like backdoors give you legal access.  I wish the language had been changed in errata but it wasn't.  Literally the only difference I can think of is that you didn't trigger an alarm when you entered and overwatch doesn't accumulate every round because of your presence.

[Dreamwalker]

I would say your just making it way more difficult than it needs to be

Well, I can live with that and just try to keep things simple (maybe someone just managed to implemented RFC3514 down the road and decided to let the bad guys have some fun anyway).

Thanks for the input!

[Banshee]

So now it is safe to assume that there are (at least) three distinct modes:
Illicit and illegal
Illicit and legal
Non-illicit and legal

Any access you got via Cracking is illicit and illegal.  Even if you used a backdoor, the patrol IC is going to see you as an illegal user.  But I agree the wording in the book you quoted does make it sound like backdoors give you legal access.  I wish the language had been changed in errata but it wasn't.  Literally the only difference I can think of is that you didn't trigger an alarm when you entered and overwatch doesn't accumulate every round because of your presence.

In hind sight ... yes I could have worded it differently, but ...
It says "does not count as illegal" which is not the same as "is legal", which is where people get hung up on as they keep trying to make it mean the same thing.
Otherwise your right ..  it boils down to that your presence itself doesn't trigger any alarms, only your actions.