Talk:Raider (RDM)/Archive 1 - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "[[Image:" to "[[File:"

2025-06-24T20:17:04Z

Text replacement - "[[Image:" to "[[File:"

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:17, 24 June 2025
Line 95:		Line 95:
	:Actually you did the right think by moving the discussion here. Well, it's not in it's "natural habitat" this is a wireframe picture of a Raider; the skin isn't very detailed and "metallic" but slate gray, and look, the eye isn't even colored in ''red''. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 21:41, 21 March 2006 (CST)		:Actually you did the right think by moving the discussion here. Well, it's not in it's "natural habitat" this is a wireframe picture of a Raider; the skin isn't very detailed and "metallic" but slate gray, and look, the eye isn't even colored in ''red''. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 21:41, 21 March 2006 (CST)
	::What about this one? It's complete, because its the model Zoic used in the end.		::What about this one? It's complete, because its the model Zoic used in the end.
	[[~~Image~~:CyRaider.jpg\|thumb\|]]		[[File:CyRaider.jpg\|thumb\|]]
	:::Well, I'll just ask again which everyone prefers, if no one answes I'll proceed to putting this pic and seeing how it decelops.... --[[User:Sauron18\|Sauron18]] 22 March 2006		:::Well, I'll just ask again which everyone prefers, if no one answes I'll proceed to putting this pic and seeing how it decelops.... --[[User:Sauron18\|Sauron18]] 22 March 2006

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:58:27Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

Catrope: /* Raider Design from Season 4 Episode One */ I like

2008-04-11T10:03:30Z

Raider Design from Season 4 Episode One: I like

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:03, 11 April 2008
Line 138:		Line 138:
	:With CGI being down in house, it might just the way they say it, then again, we never see a direct front view from the miniseries. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane\|talk]]) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)		:With CGI being down in house, it might just the way they say it, then again, we never see a direct front view from the miniseries. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane\|talk]]) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
	: Uhm, we've seen a direct view from the miniseries. Indeed, Blacklight points out an excellent point here... We know that they've upgraded many of the CGI models (the basestar, Vipers, etc) since they went "in house", so this a retconned change. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [[bsp:\|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)		: Uhm, we've seen a direct view from the miniseries. Indeed, Blacklight points out an excellent point here... We know that they've upgraded many of the CGI models (the basestar, Vipers, etc) since they went "in house", so this a retconned change. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [[bsp:\|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
			::I actually like the new design, it resembles a Centurion's eye more closely this way. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 10:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* Raider Design from Season 4 Episode One */ reply

2008-04-10T21:20:03Z

Raider Design from Season 4 Episode One: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:20, 10 April 2008
Line 137:		Line 137:
	A comparison to prove my point: [http://img1.tvloop.com/img/showpics/c8/25/l352c54880000_1_22927.jpg V-Shape] vs. [[:Image:Raider head..jpg\|this]]. {{unsigned\|Blacklight}}		A comparison to prove my point: [http://img1.tvloop.com/img/showpics/c8/25/l352c54880000_1_22927.jpg V-Shape] vs. [[:Image:Raider head..jpg\|this]]. {{unsigned\|Blacklight}}
	:With CGI being down in house, it might just the way they say it, then again, we never see a direct front view from the miniseries. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane\|talk]]) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)		:With CGI being down in house, it might just the way they say it, then again, we never see a direct front view from the miniseries. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane\|talk]]) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
			: Uhm, we've seen a direct view from the miniseries. Indeed, Blacklight points out an excellent point here... We know that they've upgraded many of the CGI models (the basestar, Vipers, etc) since they went "in house", so this a retconned change. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [[bsp:\|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Shane: /* Raider Design from Season 4 Episode One */

2008-04-10T20:21:16Z

Raider Design from Season 4 Episode One

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:21, 10 April 2008
Line 136:		Line 136:

	A comparison to prove my point: [http://img1.tvloop.com/img/showpics/c8/25/l352c54880000_1_22927.jpg V-Shape] vs. [[:Image:Raider head..jpg\|this]]. {{unsigned\|Blacklight}}		A comparison to prove my point: [http://img1.tvloop.com/img/showpics/c8/25/l352c54880000_1_22927.jpg V-Shape] vs. [[:Image:Raider head..jpg\|this]]. {{unsigned\|Blacklight}}
			:With CGI being down in house, it might just the way they say it, then again, we never see a direct front view from the miniseries. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane\|talk]]) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Shane: /* Raider Design from Season 4 Episode One */

2008-04-10T20:20:04Z

Raider Design from Season 4 Episode One

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:20, 10 April 2008
Line 135:		Line 135:
	It seems that the Viper Mk VII and the Raiders are getting a make over in their CGIs. The new Raider "eye" is now more of a V shape than was seen in the mini series.		It seems that the Viper Mk VII and the Raiders are getting a make over in their CGIs. The new Raider "eye" is now more of a V shape than was seen in the mini series.

	A comparison to prove my point: [http://img1.tvloop.com/img/showpics/c8/25/l352c54880000_1_22927.jpg V-Shape] vs. [[Image:Raider head..jpg]]		A comparison to prove my point: [http://img1.tvloop.com/img/showpics/c8/25/l352c54880000_1_22927.jpg V-Shape] vs. [[:Image:Raider head..jpg\|this]]. {{unsigned\|Blacklight}}

Blacklight: New cylon raider V-shape Eye

2008-04-10T20:16:15Z

New cylon raider V-shape Eye

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:16, 10 April 2008
Line 130:		Line 130:
	Having recently re-watched Razor I noticed that the CGI model of the new Raider seemed different. This was especially evident in the battle at the Scorpion shipyards, where we see it up close as it launches a missile at Pegasus; it appears to be more angular (and more threatening, actually). I think that this could be a retcon of the design, just as one was made for the Cylon baseships in Season 3 and the Viper Mk VII in 'Maelstrom'. If someone has a DVD on Razor on hand, I think it would be good to get a screen cap of that. There's been a lot of retconning in that respect lately, hasn't there? --Helo87		Having recently re-watched Razor I noticed that the CGI model of the new Raider seemed different. This was especially evident in the battle at the Scorpion shipyards, where we see it up close as it launches a missile at Pegasus; it appears to be more angular (and more threatening, actually). I think that this could be a retcon of the design, just as one was made for the Cylon baseships in Season 3 and the Viper Mk VII in 'Maelstrom'. If someone has a DVD on Razor on hand, I think it would be good to get a screen cap of that. There's been a lot of retconning in that respect lately, hasn't there? --Helo87
	: You'll find the screencaps [http://cappa.frakr.com/v/battlestar_galactica/rdm/razor here]. As for the CGI models, BSG now does a lot of inhouse work, so the ships and like look different. From what I've read so far from Hutzel (who did an interview a while back about the CGI), they're reworking the Centurion model as well so that it works better with live action, since we'll be seeing a lot more of the new Cylon Centurions in S4. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 00:58, 5 January 2008 (CST)		: You'll find the screencaps [http://cappa.frakr.com/v/battlestar_galactica/rdm/razor here]. As for the CGI models, BSG now does a lot of inhouse work, so the ships and like look different. From what I've read so far from Hutzel (who did an interview a while back about the CGI), they're reworking the Centurion model as well so that it works better with live action, since we'll be seeing a lot more of the new Cylon Centurions in S4. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 00:58, 5 January 2008 (CST)

			== Raider Design from Season 4 Episode One ==

			It seems that the Viper Mk VII and the Raiders are getting a make over in their CGIs. The new Raider "eye" is now more of a V shape than was seen in the mini series.

			A comparison to prove my point: [http://img1.tvloop.com/img/showpics/c8/25/l352c54880000_1_22927.jpg V-Shape] vs. [[Image:Raider head..jpg]]

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* New Raider design from 'Razor'. */ reply

2008-01-05T06:58:37Z

New Raider design from 'Razor'.: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:58, 5 January 2008
Line 129:		Line 129:

	Having recently re-watched Razor I noticed that the CGI model of the new Raider seemed different. This was especially evident in the battle at the Scorpion shipyards, where we see it up close as it launches a missile at Pegasus; it appears to be more angular (and more threatening, actually). I think that this could be a retcon of the design, just as one was made for the Cylon baseships in Season 3 and the Viper Mk VII in 'Maelstrom'. If someone has a DVD on Razor on hand, I think it would be good to get a screen cap of that. There's been a lot of retconning in that respect lately, hasn't there? --Helo87		Having recently re-watched Razor I noticed that the CGI model of the new Raider seemed different. This was especially evident in the battle at the Scorpion shipyards, where we see it up close as it launches a missile at Pegasus; it appears to be more angular (and more threatening, actually). I think that this could be a retcon of the design, just as one was made for the Cylon baseships in Season 3 and the Viper Mk VII in 'Maelstrom'. If someone has a DVD on Razor on hand, I think it would be good to get a screen cap of that. There's been a lot of retconning in that respect lately, hasn't there? --Helo87
			: You'll find the screencaps [http://cappa.frakr.com/v/battlestar_galactica/rdm/razor here]. As for the CGI models, BSG now does a lot of inhouse work, so the ships and like look different. From what I've read so far from Hutzel (who did an interview a while back about the CGI), they're reworking the Centurion model as well so that it works better with live action, since we'll be seeing a lot more of the new Cylon Centurions in S4. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 00:58, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Helo87: New section: New Raider design from 'Razor'.

2008-01-05T03:35:13Z

New section: New Raider design from 'Razor'.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:35, 5 January 2008
Line 125:		Line 125:
	Shouldn't we just call this article [[Raider (RDM)]], since the other articles on Raiders tend to be simply "Raider (disambiguator)"? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 13:26, 6 October 2007 (CDT)		Shouldn't we just call this article [[Raider (RDM)]], since the other articles on Raiders tend to be simply "Raider (disambiguator)"? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 13:26, 6 October 2007 (CDT)
	:Probably yes, but I wouldn't bother fixing all the links to this name. Not even with the bot. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 13:49, 6 October 2007 (CDT)		:Probably yes, but I wouldn't bother fixing all the links to this name. Not even with the bot. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 13:49, 6 October 2007 (CDT)

			== New Raider design from 'Razor'. ==

			Having recently re-watched Razor I noticed that the CGI model of the new Raider seemed different. This was especially evident in the battle at the Scorpion shipyards, where we see it up close as it launches a missile at Pegasus; it appears to be more angular (and more threatening, actually). I think that this could be a retcon of the design, just as one was made for the Cylon baseships in Season 3 and the Viper Mk VII in 'Maelstrom'. If someone has a DVD on Razor on hand, I think it would be good to get a screen cap of that. There's been a lot of retconning in that respect lately, hasn't there? --Helo87

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Talk:Cylon Raider (RDM) moved to Talk:Raider (RDM): condensing name

2007-10-06T18:58:04Z

Talk:Cylon Raider (RDM) moved to Talk:Raider (RDM): condensing name

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:58, 6 October 2007
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:03, 11 April 2008
Line 138:		Line 138:
	:With CGI being down in house, it might just the way they say it, then again, we never see a direct front view from the miniseries. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane\|talk]]) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)		:With CGI being down in house, it might just the way they say it, then again, we never see a direct front view from the miniseries. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane\|talk]]) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
	: Uhm, we've seen a direct view from the miniseries. Indeed, Blacklight points out an excellent point here... We know that they've upgraded many of the CGI models (the basestar, Vipers, etc) since they went "in house", so this a retconned change. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [[bsp:\|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)		: Uhm, we've seen a direct view from the miniseries. Indeed, Blacklight points out an excellent point here... We know that they've upgraded many of the CGI models (the basestar, Vipers, etc) since they went "in house", so this a retconned change. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [[bsp:\|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
			::I actually like the new design, it resembles a Centurion's eye more closely this way. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 10:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:20, 10 April 2008
Line 137:		Line 137:
	A comparison to prove my point: [http://img1.tvloop.com/img/showpics/c8/25/l352c54880000_1_22927.jpg V-Shape] vs. [[:Image:Raider head..jpg\|this]]. {{unsigned\|Blacklight}}		A comparison to prove my point: [http://img1.tvloop.com/img/showpics/c8/25/l352c54880000_1_22927.jpg V-Shape] vs. [[:Image:Raider head..jpg\|this]]. {{unsigned\|Blacklight}}
	:With CGI being down in house, it might just the way they say it, then again, we never see a direct front view from the miniseries. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane\|talk]]) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)		:With CGI being down in house, it might just the way they say it, then again, we never see a direct front view from the miniseries. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane\|talk]]) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
			: Uhm, we've seen a direct view from the miniseries. Indeed, Blacklight points out an excellent point here... We know that they've upgraded many of the CGI models (the basestar, Vipers, etc) since they went "in house", so this a retconned change. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [[bsp:\|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:58, 11 April 2020
Line 32:		Line 32:
	This needs to be split into three articles - one for TOS, and one each for the piloted and autonomous RDM models. Anybody have ideas for article titles?		This needs to be split into three articles - one for TOS, and one each for the piloted and autonomous RDM models. Anybody have ideas for article titles?

	Additionally, should this be "Cylon Raider" or just "Raider"? We don't call them Colonial Vipers, after all. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 13:49, 2 January 2006 (EST)		Additionally, should this be "Cylon Raider" or just "Raider"? We don't call them Colonial Vipers, after all. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 13:49, 2 January 2006 (EST)

	:I agree that "Raider" should suffice. "Cylon Raider" might be necessary if we needed to distinguish it from a Colonial model. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:06, 2 January 2006 (EST)		:I agree that "Raider" should suffice. "Cylon Raider" might be necessary if we needed to distinguish it from a Colonial model. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 14:06, 2 January 2006 (EST)
Line 49:		Line 49:
	Kahran wrote:		Kahran wrote:
	:''The new Raider is also succeptable to the same type of system-crashing virus which it has been known to transmit itself. ("[[Flight of the Pheonix]]")''		:''The new Raider is also succeptable to the same type of system-crashing virus which it has been known to transmit itself. ("[[Flight of the Pheonix]]")''
	Not correct. First of all, we've never actually seen a raider transmit a virus. In the miniseries, they exploited a back door in the CNP to shut down the fleet directly; in "Valley of Darkness" we saw a virus but for logical reasons, it could not possibly have originated from outside the ship; and in "Flight of the Phoenix" we again saw a backdoor being exploited, this time in the other direction. Secondly, it is completely unsurprising that a Cylon agent such as Caprica-Valerii would have knowledge of how to access such a backdoor in her own people's technology. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 05:37, 4 January 2006 (EST)		Not correct. First of all, we've never actually seen a raider transmit a virus. In the miniseries, they exploited a back door in the CNP to shut down the fleet directly; in "Valley of Darkness" we saw a virus but for logical reasons, it could not possibly have originated from outside the ship; and in "Flight of the Phoenix" we again saw a backdoor being exploited, this time in the other direction. Secondly, it is completely unsurprising that a Cylon agent such as Caprica-Valerii would have knowledge of how to access such a backdoor in her own people's technology. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 05:37, 4 January 2006 (EST)

	:I'm questioning a part of the reasoning here. In the miniseries, the raiders exploit the CNP backdoors and command shutdown of Colonial systems. Yes; no "virus" is transmitted there. But in "Scattered" we hear Gaeta specifically discussing an infiltration attempt--		:I'm questioning a part of the reasoning here. In the miniseries, the raiders exploit the CNP backdoors and command shutdown of Colonial systems. Yes; no "virus" is transmitted there. But in "Scattered" we hear Gaeta specifically discussing an infiltration attempt--
Line 61:		Line 61:
	::Second, as regarding the events of "Valley of Darkness": Having two computers networked is not sufficient to make them vulnerable to attack. In order to receive a "virus" or any other sort of malware from off-ship, one of the components must have had a connection to the outside world via some sort of RF ("wireless") frequency. Thus, of the four computers Gaeta networked, at least one must already have been vulnerable.		::Second, as regarding the events of "Valley of Darkness": Having two computers networked is not sufficient to make them vulnerable to attack. In order to receive a "virus" or any other sort of malware from off-ship, one of the components must have had a connection to the outside world via some sort of RF ("wireless") frequency. Thus, of the four computers Gaeta networked, at least one must already have been vulnerable.

	::However, Galactica's entire design ethos was explicitly meant to separate vulnerable functions. There is no conceivable reason that any of the four systems Gaeta connected (FTL, Navigation, Fire control, Damage control) would need access to a wireless tranceiver. Therefore, the only plausible source for the virus was from ''within'' the ship itself. This does not present much of a contradiction - the simple fact of networking those four systems together would be a great moment of opportunity for an infiltrator to plant a virus for maximum effect. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 14:58, 4 January 2006 (EST)		::However, Galactica's entire design ethos was explicitly meant to separate vulnerable functions. There is no conceivable reason that any of the four systems Gaeta connected (FTL, Navigation, Fire control, Damage control) would need access to a wireless tranceiver. Therefore, the only plausible source for the virus was from ''within'' the ship itself. This does not present much of a contradiction - the simple fact of networking those four systems together would be a great moment of opportunity for an infiltrator to plant a virus for maximum effect. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 14:58, 4 January 2006 (EST)

	:::That's a good point, and one I purposefully addressed indirectly in the [[Computers]] article. We have to strike it up to one of three issues: (1) A retcon issue; (2) the mainframe computer (which may handle communications) is the most resistant to infiltration since it must ALWAYS have wireless up and running for fighter chat (DRADIS is managed through the Nav computer), or (3) the comm system is NOT computer-based or operated, but a hardwire system that transmits its data in a manner which cannot infect the mainframe in some manner. When other computers are connected to it via Gaeta's gateway (which also exposes the computers to the hardwired comm system network), the Cylons infiltrate by hacking the exposed ''gateway'' Gaeta created, not the computers. Yes, normally the other computers DON'T need or have access to the each other. But the ''gateway'' created was vulnerable because it's the comm system that's likely used to create one for the networking of the computers. Once the gateway was up, all but the comm system was vulnerable for reasons below.		:::That's a good point, and one I purposefully addressed indirectly in the [[Computers]] article. We have to strike it up to one of three issues: (1) A retcon issue; (2) the mainframe computer (which may handle communications) is the most resistant to infiltration since it must ALWAYS have wireless up and running for fighter chat (DRADIS is managed through the Nav computer), or (3) the comm system is NOT computer-based or operated, but a hardwire system that transmits its data in a manner which cannot infect the mainframe in some manner. When other computers are connected to it via Gaeta's gateway (which also exposes the computers to the hardwired comm system network), the Cylons infiltrate by hacking the exposed ''gateway'' Gaeta created, not the computers. Yes, normally the other computers DON'T need or have access to the each other. But the ''gateway'' created was vulnerable because it's the comm system that's likely used to create one for the networking of the computers. Once the gateway was up, all but the comm system was vulnerable for reasons below.
Line 69:		Line 69:
	::::I like the "Gateway attack" scenario (limited window created by Gaeta's jury-rigging), but it seems like all of these scenarios are running under the assumption that the virus/logic bomb infected the system from the outside. That may be the case (and Flight of the Phoenix seemed to prove that it could be transmitted that way, at least to the Raiders), but isn't it possible for ''Galactica'''s systems to have been infected from the ''inside''? With several potential humano-cylons on the loose inside the fleet, it may turn out that some of the computer problems have been done as part of an "inside job". I have NOTHING to support that, but I just wanted to raise the possibility (if it hadn't already been mentioned). --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 16:06, 4 January 2006 (EST)		::::I like the "Gateway attack" scenario (limited window created by Gaeta's jury-rigging), but it seems like all of these scenarios are running under the assumption that the virus/logic bomb infected the system from the outside. That may be the case (and Flight of the Phoenix seemed to prove that it could be transmitted that way, at least to the Raiders), but isn't it possible for ''Galactica'''s systems to have been infected from the ''inside''? With several potential humano-cylons on the loose inside the fleet, it may turn out that some of the computer problems have been done as part of an "inside job". I have NOTHING to support that, but I just wanted to raise the possibility (if it hadn't already been mentioned). --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 16:06, 4 January 2006 (EST)

	:::::This is what I've been saying all along. Am I not speaking english? --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 16:29, 4 January 2006 (EST)		:::::This is what I've been saying all along. Am I not speaking english? --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 16:29, 4 January 2006 (EST)

	::::::Didn't see that little bit right there at the end... "would be a great moment of opportunity for an infiltrator to plant a virus for maximum effect" or perhaps I read it as an external attacker. I'm guessing that possibility is generally being overlooked in favor of the more straightforward external network attack. I hope that this angle is explored more and not left to speculation, as I don't think that it can be definitely proven how the system was compromised. (Which is what you've been saying this whole time. At least the message has spread one person further.) --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 16:46, 4 January 2006 (EST)		::::::Didn't see that little bit right there at the end... "would be a great moment of opportunity for an infiltrator to plant a virus for maximum effect" or perhaps I read it as an external attacker. I'm guessing that possibility is generally being overlooked in favor of the more straightforward external network attack. I hope that this angle is explored more and not left to speculation, as I don't think that it can be definitely proven how the system was compromised. (Which is what you've been saying this whole time. At least the message has spread one person further.) --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 16:46, 4 January 2006 (EST)
Line 77:		Line 77:
	::::::::A virus could have been planted (through a hardline, onboard the ship) into one of the four networked systems during Scattered, and then spread to the other three in short order. I think it's actually fairly likely that there's an unknown cylon agent on Galactica - probably somebody of the lower ranks who we haven't seen, or else C-Valerii would have identified him.		::::::::A virus could have been planted (through a hardline, onboard the ship) into one of the four networked systems during Scattered, and then spread to the other three in short order. I think it's actually fairly likely that there's an unknown cylon agent on Galactica - probably somebody of the lower ranks who we haven't seen, or else C-Valerii would have identified him.

	::::::::For my sake, could you please try and restate the points in your second post, the one immediately after my reply? I have the feeling you're trying to say something interesting, but your wording is too confusing for me to untangle. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 19:56, 4 January 2006 (EST)		::::::::For my sake, could you please try and restate the points in your second post, the one immediately after my reply? I have the feeling you're trying to say something interesting, but your wording is too confusing for me to untangle. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 19:56, 4 January 2006 (EST)

	:::::::::Sure.		:::::::::Sure.
Line 87:		Line 87:
	::::::::::* The "logic bomb" concept was specious; it couldn't travel through to the other computers (no network), and the system failures throughout the ship suggest that the computers fully control ''Galactica's'' subsystems like life support. Of course, the computers probably never fully cleaned, which makes more sense for system failures. Isn't that a network? Doesn't work. By the same token, for Cylons to activate the bomb from their fighter armada implies that Gaeta's ad-hoc network is up again and allowing hack commands to enter ''Galactica.'' BIG, freight-train sized science gaffe for the sake of plot. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 23:01, 4 January 2006 (EST)		::::::::::* The "logic bomb" concept was specious; it couldn't travel through to the other computers (no network), and the system failures throughout the ship suggest that the computers fully control ''Galactica's'' subsystems like life support. Of course, the computers probably never fully cleaned, which makes more sense for system failures. Isn't that a network? Doesn't work. By the same token, for Cylons to activate the bomb from their fighter armada implies that Gaeta's ad-hoc network is up again and allowing hack commands to enter ''Galactica.'' BIG, freight-train sized science gaffe for the sake of plot. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 23:01, 4 January 2006 (EST)
	:::::::::::: For the sake of speculation, I'm going to state it as a given that the systems are not networked in any traditional sense and that the FTL, Navigation, Fire control, and Damage control computers are infected, and the Nav computer actually does manage DRADIS. Isn't it possible for the Cylons to have taken into account the fact that the ad-hoc network would be disabled before the virus could complete it's run, and build in contingencies for such an event? The DRADIS by nature would require a transceiver of some form. Even if that receiver is not designed to process such information, it would theoretically be possible send some sort of recognizable signal through it to the Nav computer to act as a trigger. Beyond that, the damage control computer would, by necessity, be connected to every system on the ship to monitor for failure conditions. In addition, the other three computers should be able to detect and/or set error condition markers for the systems they monitor and control. While nowhere near an efficient or traditional mode of communication, it could serve in a limited sense. The Cylons would be aware of, if not intimately acquainted with the designs for all battlestars thanks to Number Six's infiltration of the Defense Mainframe. Am I the only one who sees this as plausible? [[User:Durandal\|Durandal]] 15:15, 8 January 2006 (EST)		:::::::::::: For the sake of speculation, I'm going to state it as a given that the systems are not networked in any traditional sense and that the FTL, Navigation, Fire control, and Damage control computers are infected, and the Nav computer actually does manage DRADIS. Isn't it possible for the Cylons to have taken into account the fact that the ad-hoc network would be disabled before the virus could complete it's run, and build in contingencies for such an event? The DRADIS by nature would require a transceiver of some form. Even if that receiver is not designed to process such information, it would theoretically be possible send some sort of recognizable signal through it to the Nav computer to act as a trigger. Beyond that, the damage control computer would, by necessity, be connected to every system on the ship to monitor for failure conditions. In addition, the other three computers should be able to detect and/or set error condition markers for the systems they monitor and control. While nowhere near an efficient or traditional mode of communication, it could serve in a limited sense. The Cylons would be aware of, if not intimately acquainted with the designs for all battlestars thanks to Number Six's infiltration of the Defense Mainframe. Am I the only one who sees this as plausible? [[User:Durandal\|Durandal]] 15:15, 8 January 2006 (EST)
	:::::::::::::Triggering a virus through DRADIS is plausible if it's ''already there'', but planting one that way is not. It must have come in through a comm channel (as Spencerian argues) or from inside the ship (as I do). None of the system failures in Flight of the Phoenix require a network to be in place anyway - once the logic bomb had infected the four sub-systems, it would procede to sabotage them independantly. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 15:22, 8 January 2006 (EST)		:::::::::::::Triggering a virus through DRADIS is plausible if it's ''already there'', but planting one that way is not. It must have come in through a comm channel (as Spencerian argues) or from inside the ship (as I do). None of the system failures in Flight of the Phoenix require a network to be in place anyway - once the logic bomb had infected the four sub-systems, it would procede to sabotage them independantly. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 15:22, 8 January 2006 (EST)
	:::::::::::::: As I said, I was making the fact that the systems were already infected a given. I was simply trying to explain the aparent coordination of the systems going down and how the Cylons kicked it into high gear, so to speak. However, the thought now comes to mind that, aside from the modifications ot CNP, the DRADIS control software could have also been modified pre-infection to enable it's use as a backdoor. (I know, reaching, but it floated to the top of my brain, so I go there...) [[User:Durandal\|Durandal]] 15:35, 8 January 2006 (EST)		:::::::::::::: As I said, I was making the fact that the systems were already infected a given. I was simply trying to explain the aparent coordination of the systems going down and how the Cylons kicked it into high gear, so to speak. However, the thought now comes to mind that, aside from the modifications ot CNP, the DRADIS control software could have also been modified pre-infection to enable it's use as a backdoor. (I know, reaching, but it floated to the top of my brain, so I go there...) [[User:Durandal\|Durandal]] 15:35, 8 January 2006 (EST)

Line 100:		Line 100:
	::No, Sauron, you're still just using a ''model''; it's the default one that Zoic sticks in, but the coloring is all wrong; please don't jump ahead on this one and "if no one answers proceed to use it" (you probably meant this less abrasively than it sounds). --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 23:23, 21 March 2006 (CST)		::No, Sauron, you're still just using a ''model''; it's the default one that Zoic sticks in, but the coloring is all wrong; please don't jump ahead on this one and "if no one answers proceed to use it" (you probably meant this less abrasively than it sounds). --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 23:23, 21 March 2006 (CST)