4 ms·
It sounds like a low risk. How many people would go through the trouble of trying to create a denial of ink and paper attack? How many people would notice? I
by ipaddr 5y ago
It sounds like a low risk. How many people would go through the trouble of trying to create a denial of ink and paper attack? How many people would notice?
If you are trying to get your ex back perhaps these small victories help but to go on shoden to find these printers and use more color is a weird thing to do over spying on cams.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dumpsterdiver 5y agoWell, let's not disregard the more serious attack that the parent poster mentioned: > For example, if they do a "Scan document and send to contact "Accountant", you very well may have modified it to be your email or phone. In places where personnel PII is closely guarded this would absolutely be a big deal. Also, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the impact of a denial of ink attack at larger scales. In my experience, printers spewing gibberish isn't usually intentional, but a side effect of an improperly configured scan. Not only can this be costly in ink alone, but also in time and the patience of your employees. You've assumed that the attack is targeting the more expensive color ink, but what happens when employees can't print simple documents in black ink? Just change the cartridge (on hundreds of printers), right? And when it happens again tomorrow? After a few days you're going to have to start thinking about the wages you pay these folks to do that.
- pugworthy 5y agoPro tip: print all in grey as it's "not black" and uses all the color ink.