NEWS

Questions about Signal rating

  • 38 Replies
  • 10523 Views

Catadmin

  • *
  • Freelancer
  • Chummer
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
  • Is this Kansas?
    • Obligatory Webpage
« Reply #15 on: <09-06-10/1039:30> »
I would be curious to hear the explaination (from whoever came up with that) of how you can 'hide' a node. If it is broadcasting, while it may be encrypted...using burst transmission or even imbedded in another transmission, energy is going out.  ;D

Ignoring the broadcasting part of your statement, hiding a node would be easy if you only allow it to receive subscriptions from those devices pre-programmed to "see" the node. It's how wireless home networks work today. You don't just encrypted the WEP Key, you don't allow the network to openly broadcast, and program it to only accept connections from specific MAC addresses.

Of course, in SR, if the runners can hack one of those subscribing devices, you no longer have a hidden node. To find it, all the runners have to do is start looking for broadcasting devices that are sending traffic ... nowhere. Hack the device, follow the trail, and viola, you have your hidden node.
Brandie Tarvin
Author / DBA / SR Freelancer
website: http://www.brandietarvin.net
blog: http://brandietarvin.livejournal.net
Twitter: WannaBeWriter06

Now Available - Space Tramps (Flying Pen Press) and Latchkeys Unlatched (on Kindle and Nook)

Kontact

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3147
  • You called?
« Reply #16 on: <09-06-10/2000:07> »
Doesn't that put the cart before the horse though?
You can't grab the signal until you decrypt it, and you can't Initiate Cryptanalysis it until you have the node.

Or is access to a signal different than actually capturing it?

John Schmidt

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
« Reply #17 on: <09-06-10/2205:45> »
Please make the brain baby stop kicking! LOL

Still haven't had a chance to read to the rules on that yet. Not sure that I want to either!  ;D
It's not the one with your name on it; it's the one addressed "to whom it may concern" you've got to think about.

Caine Hazen

  • *
  • Global Moderator
  • Omae
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
  • Dumpshocker Emeritus
    • My lair
« Reply #18 on: <09-06-10/2212:27> »
SR4A + Unwired + realistic sense of networks = headachiness sometimes.

just think 50 years in the future... quantum computing, scifi computers... or drink yourself to sleep after hacking nights like I do  ::)
If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have on your hands is a non-working cat~DNA
SRGC 0.3: SR1 SR2 SR3 SR4++ h b+++ B--- D++ UB++ IE+ RN-- fnord DSF++++ W++++ hk+ ri++ m gm++ M--(+) P FP+

John Schmidt

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
« Reply #19 on: <09-06-10/2229:51> »
I have a couple of fifths of schnaaps in the freezer so I could do that!  ;D
It's not the one with your name on it; it's the one addressed "to whom it may concern" you've got to think about.

Mooncrow

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 106
« Reply #20 on: <09-06-10/2341:41> »
I have a couple of fifths of schnaaps in the freezer so I could do that!  ;D

Scotch basically keeps me going when I have to plow through Sensor rules.

FastJack

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6170
  • Kids these days...
« Reply #21 on: <09-06-10/2345:08> »
Hmm... I don't seem to have any problems with the stuff.

But, then again, I wired myself with a encephalon processor and Math SPU. ;)

John Schmidt

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
« Reply #22 on: <09-07-10/0014:57> »
So I should get your number Fastjack and put it into speed dial for quick answers when I am running a game?  ;D

It's not the one with your name on it; it's the one addressed "to whom it may concern" you've got to think about.

1

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #23 on: <09-07-10/0136:52> »
Now, I agree that you don't have to broadcast at full strength and can indeed use it at low power.  But my disagreement lies in this: to alter the actual device's Signal property (lowering it) is tantamount to breaking your commlink.

This is another unofficial interpretation. I'd love to hear everyone else's take on the matter.
As mentioned elsewhere, this is a screenshot of DD-WRT (Linux based firmware for routers)

Note the TX power input. This basically allows full control over the broadcast power of your router.

Note that this is a software control, not a hardware control. The firmware works on many pieces of hardware by various companies.

John Schmidt

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
« Reply #24 on: <09-07-10/0242:58> »
COOL!  ;D

Even simpler than I had imagined without having to get out a soldering iron.
It's not the one with your name on it; it's the one addressed "to whom it may concern" you've got to think about.

Lansdren

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 175
« Reply #25 on: <09-07-10/0510:57> »
A possible suggestion I had been kicking around is for it to be another program to run and use. Make it same costs as a hacking program and the rating of the program has to equal the signal of the commlink. Granted this makes it a possibly expensive program but in line with everything else and there is still the freeware / pirated option.


I do like the idea of a team dialing down their signals to 1- 2 sticking close together and when in hidden mode still being able to send comms to each other without lighing up the em spectrum for miles around
"Didnt anyone tell you as security school to geek the mage first?"  "I guess I will just have to educate you with a introduction to my boomstick"

The_Gun_Nut

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1583
« Reply #26 on: <09-07-10/0634:49> »
They could drop it to zero and just communicate by touch if necessary.  (Skinlink can work both ways, I imagine.)
There is no overkill.

Only "Open fire" and "I need to reload."

FastJack

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6170
  • Kids these days...
« Reply #27 on: <09-07-10/0902:03> »
So I should get your number Fastjack and put it into speed dial for quick answers when I am running a game?  ;D
Only if my shows aren't on... :D

1

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #28 on: <09-07-10/0930:32> »
The Detect Hidden Node action requires mutual signal range, so why would locating the physical location of a wireless node require anything less?

Thoughts on "Detect Hidden" and Mutual Signal Range.

It helped me to understand why the Detect Hidden Node action requires mutual signal range when I broke Detect Hidden into multiple steps.

1) Detect Broadcasting. This requires an antenna, nothing more. Detecting the physical location could possibly require two antennas that can communicate with each other so that they can triangulate. Or it may simply be that one antenna can calculate direction, current signal strength, and original signal strength through some combination of hardware, software, and protocols. I don't know how, but we've 60+ years to figure it out. Worse comes to worse, have your hacker own a nearby router or three and use that plus your commlink to triangulate.

2) Either way, Detect Broadcasting within Signal Range requires some capability to detect location, or at least range. It's the subset of devices that you should be able to talk to based on their location, their signal strength, the signal strength you're getting from them (to adjust for interference, etc.), etc.. Yay for computing power...

3) Detect Public within Signal Range (Detect Public). This requires mutual signal range. You send standard protocols out and gather up the responses. For Detect Public, you need to be within mutual signal range and you need to "out" yourself. Basically, this is a list of all the devices that play well with others. Note that playing well with others may be advantageous at times*.

4) Detect Hidden. Subtract Detect Public from Detect Broadcasting within Signal Range. This leaves you with all "Verified Non-Public Broadcasting", ie. "Hidden".



Edit: Note on "playing well with others". A Telematics Infrastructure (Unwired, pg 62) that's operating hidden is going to alert every hacker that runs a Detect Hidden scan. A TI has way too many devices broadcasting and serving as wireless bridges. On the other hand, a Telematics Infrastructure that's opering as a public series of routers simply appears to be a very large collection of bridges and routers. By being "out in the open", the hacker is less able to tell the purpose of the system.

On the flip side, running hidden and having the signal from your 'ware picked up by a Telematics Infrastructure is not good news. Hacking and conning your way in and acting like you're supposed to be there (complete with public) is a much better way to get past a T.I.

Being undetected while being visible in the astral and wireless worlds has it's challenges.
« Last Edit: <09-07-10/1036:22> by 1 »

KeyMasterOfGozer

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 3
« Reply #29 on: <09-07-10/1048:50> »
As some additional support for Newb...  I've seen this type of thing on many routers as well.  This can also be used for power saving modes of smaller wireless devices.  The Signal Rating could very well represent the MAXIMUM range.  I could imagine smart devices automatically reducing their signal strength based on how strong they need to be to connect to the nearest source.  And certainly, this could be manipulated in software by a decker/hacker type guy.