If HR fails to notify IT to remove an account for someone who has access to root in any way, the same problem happens. That's why I leave it accessible through RSA authentication.

That same old script would have worked if you used sudo or an IP KVM.

That's why calling someone a 'suit' is not a complement.

This. When the dress code gets strict and the SciFi posters and paraphernalia come down, the company is sinking. When I see that happen at a vendor's place of business, I start looking for a new vendor.

Lawyers are paid to advance their employer's interests, not to achieve correctness. If one wrote up a contract that was so full of shit that the entire thing got tossed they would indeed get poor marks(this is why contracts usually insist on 'severability', so that any sections determined to be bullshit shall have no effect on the remaining sections). As long as they can avoid that, though, any advantage that they can derive by inserting scary-but-groundless language is pure gravy. If somebody doesn't know that it is baseless, or can't risk fighting about it, you get compliance without even needing the law on your side. If they do, well, it's just a severable clause, so no harm done.

It's an ugly sort of business; but pragmatic.

The Pinkertons are still around, if you think that your labor relations strategy needs a firmer hand.

This seems like a logical step to encourage an atmosphere of professionalism in which HP's remaining employees can train their H1B replacements.

However, because the state itself is filing suit, it is claiming ownership of those annotations. That's fine, but the state is not permitted to hold copyrights because it is a body of the people.

So, either Georgia owns the annotations and so they're free for all or Georgia does not, and so has no standing to sue.

Set PermitRootLogin without-password

Then control access with authorized_keys. If someone leaves, remove his key from authorized_keys.

Next step, laugh at the 'hackers' wasting all that effort trying to guess the root password.

Less than 1% is an understatement. You haven't even shown that it's more likely than a moose related fatality or a deer attack. (look up man killed by moose and see how many hits you get despite the extreme unlikelihood of the event).

Even when you do see a fatality related to a stalled car, it's a car that wouldn't re-start and where someone got out of the car.

I will point out that if we're down to the range of inconvenience being enough to justify a risk, we're already far away from the screeching about being extremely irresponsible that started this thread. It's very likely the author accepted a larger risk of an accident in the process of going to see Valasek and Miller than he did during the test.

To be fair, New Zealand is the country iconic for having flightless birds that are utterly incapable of surviving against species introduced to the island. It seems only appropriate that their drone situation should be similarly flightless and delicate.

Apparently we do considering all the multitasking devotees running around with an effective IQ of 80 or less.

Touché.

And experts in security have been warning them repeatedly that something like this was inevitable for many years.

I don't think the idea that hackers might have excessive fun with a computer controlled system is such an obscure thought to have in the 21st century. Especially since they have been REPEATEDLY warned in public and in private about the risk for over a decade.

This wasn't just ignorance, it was WILLFUL ignorance.

Hey, look out for that piano! It's about to fall on your head!!! MOVE!!!...RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!

(5 seconds later) CRASH! Well, to be realistic, how could he possibly have anticipated a piano falling on him?