And if it's your first keyboard, how do you answer? Scream "YES" at it, or plug in the compromised mouse?
Even if you just allow HID devices without confirmation, compromised HID devices that click "yes" for you will be next.
It's still chicken and egg. Even if you have a touchscreen, that screen is an input device too, you know.
...except that plenty of people, even those who should know better, are willing to accept a free flash drive.
And that flash drive also is a HID device, and it's going to sometimes send a series of keystrokes that issue command you don't like.
This entire hack depends on a device that looks like a keyboard, not being a keyboard, but being a keyboard AND a network card - or a flash drive that's ALSO a HID device - or a webcam that's also a BT receiver.
My particular niche of IT centers around healthcare, which includes insurers, which pretty much mandates preemployment screening at a minimum.
..but, but, (failed) f1r$t p0$+!
I had a problem with worse once.
It was worse than expected.
I have never, and will never, submit to a drug test.
While I am in favor of voting with my feet (so to speak), most of us can't afford to remain steadfast in our convictions when it comes to keeping our mortgage paid and our kids fed.
I had a drug test in 1996, and again in 2001, and a pair of them in 2013. I'm now subject to random testing, which irks me to no end. Unfortunately, there's no other game in town that wants to pay me six figures and not test me -- at least not one I've found yet.
Hear hear!
We should remove other decisions from the weakest among us. Why let them enter into legal contracts regarding their own health and finance when we're certainly more capable of doing it for them. We're just protecting them, after all.
Did they also receive 50% fewer callbacks, or were the callbacks they received only of poorer quality?
Or he's from Quebec, and he's got an 11th grade primary education and some sort of 2+ year degree there...
* Men don't have to worry as much because their sizes are measured in inches.
Well, sort of.
Although more common in women's apparel, vanity sizing occurs in men's clothing as well. For example, men's pants are traditionally marked with two numbers, "waist" (waist circumference) and "inseam" (distance from the crotch to the hem of the pant). While the nominal inseam is fairly accurate, the nominal size may be smaller than the actual length by more than an inch in U.S. sizes. In 2010, Abram Sauer of Esquire measured several pairs of dress pants with a nominal waist size of 36 at different U.S. retailers and found that actual measurements ranged from 37 to 41 inches.[7] The phenomenon has also been noticed in the United Kingdom, where a 2011 study found misleading labels on more than half of checked items of clothing. In that study, worst offenders understated waist circumferences by 1.5 to 2 inches. London-based market analyst Mintel say that the number of men reporting varying waistlines from store to store doubled between 2005 and 2011.[8]
Men have been lying about a couple of inches in the pants forever too
I think it's adorable that you believe you can't.
I touch my NFC enabled phone to a number of physical card readers, each time generating a virtual number...
Thank you. That's sweet of you to say.
There were fewer eyes back then...
In our particular case we keep getting sent a $600 bill from a local hospital because a specialist couldn't figure out the right ICD-9 on his paperwork which he submitted 6 months after the treatment, and our insurance rejected it. They're over the SOL, but that doesn't seem to stop them from mailing us twice a year.
I sort of feel bad for the hospital. Stupid doctor. They could get paid pretty quickly if they'd send the right paperwork to my previous insurer.
"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein
