4 ms·
my anecdotal guess: there was a single admin account rather than a group, and they didnt want to risk changing the password because of an unknown number of scri
by mysterydip 2y ago
my anecdotal guess: there was a single admin account rather than a group, and they didnt want to risk changing the password because of an unknown number of scripts/services using it.
- r00fus 2y agoIs this even remotely justifiable in a well run organization? Speaks more to the management than this fired employee.
- mysterydip 2y agoI don't think anyone sets out to have this policy. What seems to happen, especially with organizations that existed pre-computing, is these things evolved gradually along with computing and best practices. You picked the person with the most computing prowess, sat them down and said "make this work". And they got it working. And then it was too important to stop working. It takes an IT team with skill and a management team that trusts them and their decision making to turn that kind of thing around. It's a similar story of a company that fails to have a working backup or disaster recovery: "everything has been fine and we can't justify the expense", when in reality it's a time bomb.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- scruple 2y ago> a well run organization Those exist?