Hyper, im with MyrddinE here, cleartext numbers are not really needed.

Passwords have a strenght variable, crackers as well, and crackers need a gauß distributed time with (password str./cracker str.)*balancing time as median value.
One has to create passwords with an in-game process which gets ever more expensive with rising password strenght.

maybe with the standard deviation as parameter of the cracker, with highly reliable crackers that always need the same time, and unreliable crackers that occasionally give you basically instant access.


From you explanation firewalls, passwords and encryption do largely the same gameplay wise, why not unify them?

Firewalls protect areas in the network which can contain programs or data, and can be passed by knowing/cracking the password or cracking the firewall itself.
Going the bruteforce password route gives you more tries to enter (longer time to hack) but can be cut off if you are detected and thrown out.
Cracking the firewall has less tries to get through, but gives you more robust access to the protected areas.

Ok, reviewing the responses, I've come up with an even simpler hacking idea.

Hacking in LT 1 could be as follows

• Hacking targets systems on a ship or station
• Automatic hacking has a mean time to entry, and a % chance of being detected and/or thwarted, determined by strength of hacker pc(HPC) and defense network(DNW) respectively
• Manual hacking is hexcell (minesweeper) type puzzle, where you enter through ports, but if you get more than a given # of ports wrong, you are detected and thwarted.
  . The stronger your HPC, the more mistakes you can make before detection.
  . The stronger your DNW, the more often the ports routinely rearrange themselves, causing any hacker to start over, detected or not.
• Detection means the defender now knows who the hacker is. Once detected, a timer begins, when it hits 0, the hacking attempt is thwarted. The hacker can begin again, but the defender knows who to attack. Better be fast in your next attempts.
  . The stronger the DNW, the shorter the timer.
• Thwarting means the hacking attempt has to start over.
  . If automatic hacking, the hack attempt is erased and begins again.
  . If you are manually hacking, the hexcell puzzle rearranges itself and you have to start over again.
• When a system is hacked, the hacker steals control of the system for a given time. The strength ratio between DNW and HPC determines how long this window is before the defender regains control of their system.
• The strength of your HPC and DNW is determined by
  . A baseline via manufacturing (which can be improved by research)
  . It can be supercharged by assigning unlimited "Hacker" workers to the given PC or Network. (Because you can only carry a limited number of workers on a ship, you have to decide how to balance the hackers on your ship to other workers)
  
  Defense Networks
• Ships and Stations can equip a Defense Network module.
• DNW modules can only protect a set number of systems per module, research on these modules can increase the number of systems a module can protect. These would be allocated as points per system, and you could assign multiple points to any given system if you want more protection for it. (AI would likely protect control, databank, engine, and weapons systems the most)
• Hackers can go after individual systems one at a time, which each have their own firewalls, or they can go after the DNW module itself, which would be significantly harder, but once breached would give the hacker control of all systems protected by that module.
• A ship can have more than one DNW module, and they can have overlapping protection, if a system is protected by multiple modules, then even if one DNW is compromised, the systems protected by the other DNW would remain safe. (A wise player would protect their most valuable systems on their most valuable ships with multiple DNW modules.)
  . A DNW can probably not protect another DNW, but that's up for debate.
• DNWs energy requirements are unaffected by strength provided by workers, and are solely determined by the module itself. Lowering the energy will reduce the number of systems it can protect, but overclocking will not increase that number.
  
  Hacking Modules
• Ships/stations can equip Hacking modules, HPCs.
• HPCs not only determine the strength of a hack for a given ship, but also the range.
  . Only research can increase range, workers cannot.
• Energy requirements are similar as DNWs, in that they are unaffected by strength provided by workers. The range however is affected by energy levels.
• like DNW's Ships can install more than one HPC to become hacking specialists.
• One can attack multiple systems at once or assign multiple HPCs to an individual hack
  . For automatic hacking this decreases the mean time but increases the chance of being detected.
  . Using additional HPCs in an automatic hack will cut the mean time to entry by a % depending on strength, but increase the likelihood of discovery arithmetically.
  . For manual hacking it makes the hexcell puzzles simpler, but decreases the number of errors you can make before being detected.
  . How much simpler the puzzle gets is determined by the strength of the additional HPCs. With enough HPC's the puzzles will become 3 hexagons: 1 with the correct port, and 2 incorrect ports, but you only get 1 mistake before being detected.
• Overall HPC & DNW strength can be increased by either equipping more modules, or assigning more workers. This gives the system balance for different priorities and playstyles.

Now just remember, the Battlestar Galatica issue, an AI can hack you better than a human can defend.
So they simply removed network access from their computers. :V

Perhaps this is an option, but reduces effectiveness of the ship?

Good point. I would be ok with unhackable ships/stations, but the Galactica option should have the severe limitations that not having an internal network brings. Absolutely every order should take longer, from targeting to maneuvering to upgrades and repairs. all modules should also require more energy to simulate the need for additional (sometimes redundant) computers instead of being networked into a single control center.

But Galactica style ships might have the unique benefit of not requiring a control center to maintain functionality, an otherwise dead ship may continue to fire or broadcast a distress signal for a while because the modules for doing so are still intact. I think it would be amazing to occasionally have what appears to be a ship you destroyed 10 minutes ago suddenly launch missiles at you because a surviving crew member managed to get the system working again for just long enough to fire a couple more. It would really add to the immersion :p