this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
60 points (95.5% liked)

Cyberpunk 2077

4155 readers
2 users here now

Everything Cyberpunk 2077

Rules

  1. Be cool. No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc.

  2. Mark spoilers and NSFW

Friends

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I can stare at one of a building’s security cameras from across the street like a creepy ghost child, and then the entire camera system stares at the people inside and sets them on fire, one by one. It’s like something out of a horror movie

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ObviouslyNotBanana 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You know what's weirder? How V fucking kneels in the middle of the street looking really, really obvious about the whole thing.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The line of sight thing is weird. You can hack a camera you're looking at and then, if the hack loads slowly enough, get around a corner to hide, but you maintain the connection, so the connection doesn't require line of sight, so then why did you need it to connect in the first place?

[–] sailingbythelee 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe you need line of sight to fix the victim precisely in space since that's the protocol for connecting to someone's cyberware. However, once connected, you can stay locked on via some other electromagnetic signal.

[–] BallsInTheShredder 1 points 1 year ago

Like connecting to the wifi but listening via Bluetooth, makes sense really

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I've always thought that the upload of the program just takes eye contact, but the execution of that program is the loading time we see. Like, some quickhacks might need to dig deeper into a system and break through more safeguards, which is why those take longer.

[–] Tum 17 points 1 year ago

There's a mod on the nexus, I forget the exact name but it should be easy enough to find, that makes it so that you have to jack in physically to some device in a network before you can use wireless quick hacks. It really adds an extra layer or challenge to hacking and I highly reccomend it.

[–] slumlordthanatos 17 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I just think it's weird that so many people's gadgets, weapons, and cyberware is accessible through the Internet and vulnerable to cyberattack.

That scene where Meredith has her goons hold you down and jack into your neural port to run some lie detection? I would have custom firmware designed to prevent intrusions like that. None of my cyberware would even have wireless capability; I'd do all of my updates using physical media. I'd do whatever it took to make me immune to netrunners. It blows my mind how nobody else in CP2077 thinks that way and how it can't be that hard to use gear without Internet connections.

[–] foyrkopp 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

When I started playing Shadowrun, I was confused about this as well. Why can I remote access someone's cyberarm to begin with? The damn thing should have exactly one data connection: To the user's nervous system. That's it.

Now that I work in IT, I can tell you that it's actually extremely realistic.

Most of these systems (yes, even "hardened milspec stuff") are highly complex tech that only megacorps can design. They aren't designed for security. They're designed to sell fast and with the minimum necessary design/production investment.

That wireless access you're highjacking? It's probably a maintenance access / private data siphon with a known unpatched CVE. Or an underpaid, overworked designer/dev forgot to remove the wifi module from the prototype spec and fixing that is "somewhere down the roadmap".

If you try to flash your 'ware with secure FOSS software, you have to overcome safeguards that are designed to prevent it and risk bricking your own arm / inviting an armed "patent protection" corpo squad to your door.

Truly secure custom-build 'ware does exist, made by a small community of independent tech nuts, but making it without a full factory/devteam requires a hideous amount of work and they're just plain-out inferior than the highly-funded, mass produced corpo crap that doesn't bother with ITsec.

Most professional runners just have a good decker of their own who will run interference for them (increase RAM cost) or try to trace the hack and disable the source before it completes.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

would have custom firmware designed to prevent intrusions like that

In-universe that's what ICE is referring to - Intrusion Countermeasures Electionics

None of my cyberware would even have wireless capability; I'd do all of my updates using physical media.

Realistically how many people use electronics today with zero wireless capability and do only updates with physical media? A tiny minority of highly security conscious people, the vast majority of us use wireless smartphones and an increasing number of IoT smart devices, because the convenience.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's mindblowing that we use facebook and allow devices with multiple cameras, GPS tracking, and microphones into our house.

We still do it though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Zahille7 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Some people don't.

I actually don't know how pervasive these things (smart home assistants) are. Sure, they're popular, but "popular" and "ubiquitous" are not the same.

For example, my family (counting parents, siblings, first cousins, and their spouses) runs from lower middle-class to upper-class. In that set of 8 households, there are 16 adults and 6 children (under 11); only one household has an Alexa. The rest have no surveillance home devices, (excluding smart phones, which all have). As for smart phones, 3 of those households have people in them who at least occasionally use Siri, and one uses Google (Hey, Google). The rest, as far as I know, don't have voice activation configured or enabled on their phones. So, 3/8 households have some invasive surveillance listening devices - fewer than half.

If we ignore the possibility that Big Brother is using all the smart devices surreptitiously to surveil the owners, then in my tiny sample, it's not "most" people buy and use these; it's well less than half, and if we only count the people actively using voice control, it's more like 1/4.

Now, nearly every person, including the children, use a smart phone or tablet nearly every day, and most adults, several times every hour. And none of these (AFAIK) are jail-broken and running Tails-like OSes. So, it depends on how you want to define the parameters.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

in any given random sample where an average person could own both or either: An Alexa/Google home is better for privacy, in general, than a mobile phone.

ChangeMyMind.webm

[–] dylanTheDeveloper 9 points 1 year ago

To be fair alot of infrastructure is pretty vulnerable today

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

You dont want to use all that cool tech in your body to look up something on wikipedia? Idk if it would be practical to completely cut yourself off from the 'Net.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

There could be reasons though. Maybe assholes like Microsoft introduced stuff like secure boot or crypto certs for the firmware to obstruct adoption of open standards and customisations. Maybe the tech is very difficult to master and people doesn't generally have much tIme to learn it. Maybe widespread usage of AI makes the type of security we know today obsolete, as they can find and exploit vulnerabilities in realtime. I dont know, just playing devil's advocate, and if it was any of these reasons it would be nice if they were at least alluded to.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought this was from a programming/hacking sublemmy for a sec and was SO CONCERNED

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

But it is... You don't creepy doll your marks from across the street choom? Are you a solo gonk or something?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

That's kind of the point. You're doing something terrible to people who, at the moment, are helpless.

It's you or them. How far will you go to preserve your life at the cost of others?