×
How Often Is Too Often for New ‘Star Wars’ Movies?

How Often Is Too Often for New ‘Star Wars’ Movies?

Tech-news , , ,

This year, after a nearly seven-year hiatus, Star Wars returns to the big screen. It’s the third-largest window ever between live-action films in the franchise, with the two longer ones being the 16 years between Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace and the 10 years between Revenge of the Sith and The Force Awakens. However, this latest wait feels wildly different, and it made us wonder, is there a correct, tried-and-true amount of time that should pass between Star Wars movies?

To put the current seven-year wait in context, we must look to the past. The reason those two longer windows were so long is that, in both cases, Star Wars was basically over. After Jedi, and again after Sith, George Lucas all but closed the book on the story. This time, though, that wasn’t the case.

In 2019, The Rise of Skywalker may have been the end of “The Skywalker Saga,” but no one considered it the end of Star Wars. Everyone knew it was coming back. It was just a question of when. So even though seven years is shorter than 16 and 10, it somehow carries more weight. Between Jedi and Phantom, as well as Sith and Force Awakens, people surely continued to talk about Star Wars, but it was more aspirational and hypothetical than anything else.

Part of that is because it’s what fans had become used to. During the times of both the original and prequel trilogies, waiting and debating Star Wars movies was the name of the game. Three years passed between the first, second, and third films of each trilogy, giving the filmmakers time to make the movies and fans to wildly obsess over them. That got taken up another level in the years leading up to The Phantom Menace, especially with the advent of the internet. And yet, Lucasfilm still waited three years between each movie even then, which let audiences sit with one film as they anxiously awaited the other.

The anticipation surrounding Star Wars was arguably the best part of Star Wars. Then Disney came on board.

The beginning of The Force Awakens. – Lucasfilm

Starting with the release of 2015’s The Force Awakens, fans got five Star Wars films in five years. And, while most of them had a full year in between, in the case of Solo, it was a mere six months. Two new Star Wars movies six months apart. It’s still unfathomable. And that time crunch took a lot of the fun out of it. Rumors, trailers, magazine features, all of it was so condensed and homogenized that it lost its luster. It was so much Star Wars so fast that excitement, understandably and inevitably, began to wane. So, by the time The Rise of Skywalker came out, we were a little burned out. That the movie failed to meet expectations didn’t help either.

Of course, that was just the beginning. After The Rise of Skywalker, Star Wars didn’t stop. It pivoted to a whole new medium. Beginning with the late 2019 release of The Mandalorian, Star Wars became a streaming franchise. Now, in addition to not having to wait too long, we didn’t even have to leave our house. No lining up. No advanced tickets. No communal experience at all. Just new Star Wars, every few months, in a bubble. And it was a lot of Star Wars.

Between 2019 and today, Lucasfilm released seven live-action shows, with 10 seasons between them, as well as six animated shows with about 18 seasons between them. (And that’s not even counting new episodes of The Clone Wars.) New Star Wars had become as regular as breathing, and, with that, some of the magic has gone away.

Mandalorian And Grogu At At
The Mandalorian and Grogu – Lucasfilm

Which brings us to this year. In May, The Mandalorian and Grogu will become the first Star Wars movie released since 2019. Then, next year, it’ll be followed up by Star Wars: Starfighter. We can all agree that seven years is too long for what is essentially just another random chapter to the story. But we can probably also agree that after seven years, suddenly getting two seemingly unrelated, standalone films in back-to-back years is falling back into that dangerous old pattern. Maybe these two films, especially if they’re good, will make it work this time. Maybe seven years of waiting gives them success like The Force Awakens and Rogue One. But maybe it doesn’t.

And, with new leadership now in control of Lucasfilm, the franchise is reportedly pivoting back to being a primarily theatrical experience. We would be very surprised if a movie a year doesn’t once again become the norm. It would almost have to, especially with nearly a dozen movies in various stages of development.

So what’s the magic number? Is there a magic number? Well, three years seemed perfect, but we don’t think that’s happening again. One year, on the other hand, is probably too often. Can Disney and Lucasfilm really afford to wait two years between Star Wars movies? Probably not. But, we think, it would be a good thing in the long run.

Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

Source link
#Star #Wars #Movies

Tag

Related Posts

Why Remote Server Access Is a Common Attack Vector

Every cloud server exposes at least one remote access point – usually SSH on port 22 – and that port is scanned constantly by bots looking for weak credentials. Password-based login is the most common way a system can be attacked by brute force, and it is quite common with a standard setup that the system is left in a state where an admin/user of that system – “root user” – can log in directly by guessing the user ID and the password combination. Add in shared team credentials, forgotten firewall rules from old projects, and staging servers left publicly reachable, and it’s clear why misconfigured remote access – not zero-day exploits – is behind most cloud server compromises. The fix is simple, though you’ll need to do some setup yourself instead of trusting the default setting.

How to lock down SSH access in the right way

The best way to secure remote access is through a series of small improvements rather than one major overhaul. The following is a real working method:

  1. Switch to SSH key authentication, then turn off password login completely in the same location: sshd_config. Keys are far harder to brute-force than passwords.
  2. Disable root login over SSH and require a non-root user with sudo privileges instead; this is a security advantage that even without any change, one key compromising would limit the impact.
  3. Change the default SSH port away from 22 to cut down on automated scanning noise (not a security measure on its own, but it reduces log clutter).
  4. Restrict access by IP using your firewall or security group, allowing SSH only from known office or VPN IP ranges rather than the entire internet.
  5. Add a VPN as a connection layer for anyone accessing servers from outside a trusted network – a VPN like Planet VPN’s free VPN service can encrypt the connection between a remote worker’s laptop and the server before SSH traffic ever leaves their device, which matters especially on public wi-fi or shared networks.

Every step you take closes the doors that the attacker may open slightly, and when you combine everything, you would have a door to a series of locked gates.

Why Do I Need a Bastion Host?

When it comes to teams working with many servers, deploying a bastion host (jump box) may be a clean and effective way to solve the long-term problem. With this method, you only expose SSH to the bastion, and the other servers accept it only when it’s from the bastion’s internal IP. This centralizes logging and makes auditing access far simpler.

Using a virtual private network (VPN) and a bastion host together is perfectly fine – and many solutions use both: a safe way to access the private network via a VPN, followed by use of a bastion host to restrict which servers can be accessed. Some teams may decide to forgo the bastion because they don’t have the manpower to manage one, and so use a combination of a VPN and a set of firewall rules that still quite a bit lowers the exposure, but without the extra effort.

Mistakes Leading to Leaving Cloud Servers Open

The Mistakes That Cause Leaving Cloud Servers Open: Even the safest development teams may have slip-ups from time to time. One of the most frequent is leaving staged, or test servers with relaxed firewall rules equivalent to those of the production environment – hackers don’t concern themselves with which environment they first land on. Another frequent error is reusing the same SSH key on several servers and clients, causing one hacked laptop to compromise all servers that key has access to.

Another common human error is not removing or changing access when someone leaves the team, so stale credentials remain valid and accessible. At last, putting trust in the strategy of “security through obscurity” – meaning one thinks that setting up the unusual port or hiding the hostname from the public is actually sufficient security – creates a wrong impression of security. This is mostly true; in reality, modern-day attackers scan all ports anyway, and there is no way to hide from them.

System Administrators Guide to Secure Remote Access 

Prohibit SSH password logins totally and depend exclusively on key-based authentication

  • Surely no one wants to type in the password every time; because of this, use only key-based authentication 
  • Deter the user from logging in as root by default and instead use the sudo command to do root tasks
  • A firewall or security group rule can provide great help with IP address-based restrictions on SSH logins 
  • For access that comes from untrusted sources or external networks, use a secure tunnel like a vpn or bastion host
  • Periodically change SSH keys and inspect access lists
  • Maintain records of login attempts and detect brute-force attacks as quickly as possible

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the principal means by which cloud servers suffer break-ins through remote access?

By far the biggest reason why this can happen is unauthorized password-based SSH logins that have been cracked by brute force. The scenario is most likely to develop where the administrator allows root login via password and leaves the default port open.

Sufficient security measures for the server via SSH keys: Do you think it is safe to rely only on key authentication? 

It is true that SSH keys drastically decrease the danger of a successful brute-force attack. However, if there is only key authentication on the server, there are still risks – the server administrator can always enable root login or disable the IP-based login restrictions. So it is recommended to always have these three in the server configuration: disabled root login, restricted access to known IPs, and rotating the keys regularly as the main components of meaningful protection. 

Is it really necessary to set up a separate VPN network while I am able to connect via SSH keys? 

A VPN gives extra security by first encrypting your computer traffic before it reaches your network, where the SSH connection will be used. This is mostly important when working on untrusted networks – like public wi-fi – where there is a threat of a potential hacker in your local network looking at your data.

Bastion host vs VPN as methods of accessing the server? 

The bastion host works by funneling SSH sessions from many users through a single, carefully monitored server point while the rest of the network (and mostly the servers) remains protected from the internet. At the same time, a vpn will fully encrypt the communication between the user and the corporate network or servers. The combination is very common among larger security teams as a part of the defense-in-depth principle. 

How often should SSH keys be rotated? 

The ideal period to change your SSH keys depends on the security practices of your organization, but generally a good practice is to change SSH keys between 90 and 180 days, or in the case that the user who had access with the key leaves or is no longer able to be contacted, such as when a team member leaves.

Why is only changing the port number for SSH enough to secure that port?

Changing the port reduces automated scanning noise in your logs but isn’t a real security control on its own — port scanners check all ports, so it should never replace key-based auth and firewall rules.

#Secure #Remote #Access #Cloud #ServerCloud,remote access">How to Secure Remote Access to Your Cloud Server in 2026 Protection against unauthorized remote logins to your cloud server is a matter of SSH key-based authentication, a strict security policy on the firewall, two-factor authentication, and a secure communication channel – no individual component will give adequate protection by itself. The major risk point in breaches is not the server but the open door to remote login. To patch that vulnerability, you need a series of countermeasures, not a magical setting. Why Remote Server Access Is a Common Attack Vector Every cloud server exposes at least one remote access point – usually SSH on port 22 – and that port is scanned constantly by bots looking for weak credentials. Password-based login is the most common way a system can be attacked by brute force, and it is quite common with a standard setup that the system is left in a state where an admin/user of that system – “root user” – can log in directly by guessing the user ID and the password combination. Add in shared team credentials, forgotten firewall rules from old projects, and staging servers left publicly reachable, and it’s clear why misconfigured remote access – not zero-day exploits – is behind most cloud server compromises. The fix is simple, though you’ll need to do some setup yourself instead of trusting the default setting. How to lock down SSH access in the right way The best way to secure remote access is through a series of small improvements rather than one major overhaul. The following is a real working method: Switch to SSH key authentication, then turn off password login completely in the same location: sshd_config. Keys are far harder to brute-force than passwords. Disable root login over SSH and require a non-root user with sudo privileges instead; this is a security advantage that even without any change, one key compromising would limit the impact. Change the default SSH port away from 22 to cut down on automated scanning noise (not a security measure on its own, but it reduces log clutter). Restrict access by IP using your firewall or security group, allowing SSH only from known office or VPN IP ranges rather than the entire internet. Add a VPN as a connection layer for anyone accessing servers from outside a trusted network – a VPN like Planet VPN’s free VPN service can encrypt the connection between a remote worker’s laptop and the server before SSH traffic ever leaves their device, which matters especially on public wi-fi or shared networks. Every step you take closes the doors that the attacker may open slightly, and when you combine everything, you would have a door to a series of locked gates. Why Do I Need a Bastion Host? When it comes to teams working with many servers, deploying a bastion host (jump box) may be a clean and effective way to solve the long-term problem. With this method, you only expose SSH to the bastion, and the other servers accept it only when it’s from the bastion’s internal IP. This centralizes logging and makes auditing access far simpler. Using a virtual private network (VPN) and a bastion host together is perfectly fine – and many solutions use both: a safe way to access the private network via a VPN, followed by use of a bastion host to restrict which servers can be accessed. Some teams may decide to forgo the bastion because they don’t have the manpower to manage one, and so use a combination of a VPN and a set of firewall rules that still quite a bit lowers the exposure, but without the extra effort. Mistakes Leading to Leaving Cloud Servers Open The Mistakes That Cause Leaving Cloud Servers Open: Even the safest development teams may have slip-ups from time to time. One of the most frequent is leaving staged, or test servers with relaxed firewall rules equivalent to those of the production environment – hackers don’t concern themselves with which environment they first land on. Another frequent error is reusing the same SSH key on several servers and clients, causing one hacked laptop to compromise all servers that key has access to. Another common human error is not removing or changing access when someone leaves the team, so stale credentials remain valid and accessible. At last, putting trust in the strategy of “security through obscurity” – meaning one thinks that setting up the unusual port or hiding the hostname from the public is actually sufficient security – creates a wrong impression of security. This is mostly true; in reality, modern-day attackers scan all ports anyway, and there is no way to hide from them. System Administrators Guide to Secure Remote Access  Prohibit SSH password logins totally and depend exclusively on key-based authentication Surely no one wants to type in the password every time; because of this, use only key-based authentication  Deter the user from logging in as root by default and instead use the sudo command to do root tasks A firewall or security group rule can provide great help with IP address-based restrictions on SSH logins  For access that comes from untrusted sources or external networks, use a secure tunnel like a vpn or bastion host Periodically change SSH keys and inspect access lists Maintain records of login attempts and detect brute-force attacks as quickly as possible Frequently Asked Questions What is the principal means by which cloud servers suffer break-ins through remote access? By far the biggest reason why this can happen is unauthorized password-based SSH logins that have been cracked by brute force. The scenario is most likely to develop where the administrator allows root login via password and leaves the default port open. Sufficient security measures for the server via SSH keys: Do you think it is safe to rely only on key authentication?  It is true that SSH keys drastically decrease the danger of a successful brute-force attack. However, if there is only key authentication on the server, there are still risks – the server administrator can always enable root login or disable the IP-based login restrictions. So it is recommended to always have these three in the server configuration: disabled root login, restricted access to known IPs, and rotating the keys regularly as the main components of meaningful protection.  Is it really necessary to set up a separate VPN network while I am able to connect via SSH keys?  A VPN gives extra security by first encrypting your computer traffic before it reaches your network, where the SSH connection will be used. This is mostly important when working on untrusted networks – like public wi-fi – where there is a threat of a potential hacker in your local network looking at your data. Bastion host vs VPN as methods of accessing the server?  The bastion host works by funneling SSH sessions from many users through a single, carefully monitored server point while the rest of the network (and mostly the servers) remains protected from the internet. At the same time, a vpn will fully encrypt the communication between the user and the corporate network or servers. The combination is very common among larger security teams as a part of the defense-in-depth principle.  How often should SSH keys be rotated?  The ideal period to change your SSH keys depends on the security practices of your organization, but generally a good practice is to change SSH keys between 90 and 180 days, or in the case that the user who had access with the key leaves or is no longer able to be contacted, such as when a team member leaves. Why is only changing the port number for SSH enough to secure that port? Changing the port reduces automated scanning noise in your logs but isn’t a real security control on its own — port scanners check all ports, so it should never replace key-based auth and firewall rules. #Secure #Remote #Access #Cloud #ServerCloud,remote access

  1. free VPN service can encrypt the connection between a remote worker’s laptop and the server before SSH traffic ever leaves their device, which matters especially on public wi-fi or shared networks.

Every step you take closes the doors that the attacker may open slightly, and when you combine everything, you would have a door to a series of locked gates.

Why Do I Need a Bastion Host?

When it comes to teams working with many servers, deploying a bastion host (jump box) may be a clean and effective way to solve the long-term problem. With this method, you only expose SSH to the bastion, and the other servers accept it only when it’s from the bastion’s internal IP. This centralizes logging and makes auditing access far simpler.

Using a virtual private network (VPN) and a bastion host together is perfectly fine – and many solutions use both: a safe way to access the private network via a VPN, followed by use of a bastion host to restrict which servers can be accessed. Some teams may decide to forgo the bastion because they don’t have the manpower to manage one, and so use a combination of a VPN and a set of firewall rules that still quite a bit lowers the exposure, but without the extra effort.

Mistakes Leading to Leaving Cloud Servers Open

The Mistakes That Cause Leaving Cloud Servers Open: Even the safest development teams may have slip-ups from time to time. One of the most frequent is leaving staged, or test servers with relaxed firewall rules equivalent to those of the production environment – hackers don’t concern themselves with which environment they first land on. Another frequent error is reusing the same SSH key on several servers and clients, causing one hacked laptop to compromise all servers that key has access to.

Another common human error is not removing or changing access when someone leaves the team, so stale credentials remain valid and accessible. At last, putting trust in the strategy of “security through obscurity” – meaning one thinks that setting up the unusual port or hiding the hostname from the public is actually sufficient security – creates a wrong impression of security. This is mostly true; in reality, modern-day attackers scan all ports anyway, and there is no way to hide from them.

System Administrators Guide to Secure Remote Access 

Prohibit SSH password logins totally and depend exclusively on key-based authentication

  • Surely no one wants to type in the password every time; because of this, use only key-based authentication 
  • Deter the user from logging in as root by default and instead use the sudo command to do root tasks
  • A firewall or security group rule can provide great help with IP address-based restrictions on SSH logins 
  • For access that comes from untrusted sources or external networks, use a secure tunnel like a vpn or bastion host
  • Periodically change SSH keys and inspect access lists
  • Maintain records of login attempts and detect brute-force attacks as quickly as possible

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the principal means by which cloud servers suffer break-ins through remote access?

By far the biggest reason why this can happen is unauthorized password-based SSH logins that have been cracked by brute force. The scenario is most likely to develop where the administrator allows root login via password and leaves the default port open.

Sufficient security measures for the server via SSH keys: Do you think it is safe to rely only on key authentication? 

It is true that SSH keys drastically decrease the danger of a successful brute-force attack. However, if there is only key authentication on the server, there are still risks – the server administrator can always enable root login or disable the IP-based login restrictions. So it is recommended to always have these three in the server configuration: disabled root login, restricted access to known IPs, and rotating the keys regularly as the main components of meaningful protection. 

Is it really necessary to set up a separate VPN network while I am able to connect via SSH keys? 

A VPN gives extra security by first encrypting your computer traffic before it reaches your network, where the SSH connection will be used. This is mostly important when working on untrusted networks – like public wi-fi – where there is a threat of a potential hacker in your local network looking at your data.

Bastion host vs VPN as methods of accessing the server? 

The bastion host works by funneling SSH sessions from many users through a single, carefully monitored server point while the rest of the network (and mostly the servers) remains protected from the internet. At the same time, a vpn will fully encrypt the communication between the user and the corporate network or servers. The combination is very common among larger security teams as a part of the defense-in-depth principle. 

How often should SSH keys be rotated? 

The ideal period to change your SSH keys depends on the security practices of your organization, but generally a good practice is to change SSH keys between 90 and 180 days, or in the case that the user who had access with the key leaves or is no longer able to be contacted, such as when a team member leaves.

Why is only changing the port number for SSH enough to secure that port?

Changing the port reduces automated scanning noise in your logs but isn’t a real security control on its own — port scanners check all ports, so it should never replace key-based auth and firewall rules.

#Secure #Remote #Access #Cloud #ServerCloud,remote access">How to Secure Remote Access to Your Cloud Server in 2026

Protection against unauthorized remote logins to your cloud server is a matter of SSH key-based authentication, a strict security policy on the firewall, two-factor authentication, and a secure communication channel – no individual component will give adequate protection by itself. The major risk point in breaches is not the server but the open door to remote login. To patch that vulnerability, you need a series of countermeasures, not a magical setting.

Why Remote Server Access Is a Common Attack Vector

Every cloud server exposes at least one remote access point – usually SSH on port 22 – and that port is scanned constantly by bots looking for weak credentials. Password-based login is the most common way a system can be attacked by brute force, and it is quite common with a standard setup that the system is left in a state where an admin/user of that system – “root user” – can log in directly by guessing the user ID and the password combination. Add in shared team credentials, forgotten firewall rules from old projects, and staging servers left publicly reachable, and it’s clear why misconfigured remote access – not zero-day exploits – is behind most cloud server compromises. The fix is simple, though you’ll need to do some setup yourself instead of trusting the default setting.

How to lock down SSH access in the right way

The best way to secure remote access is through a series of small improvements rather than one major overhaul. The following is a real working method:

  1. Switch to SSH key authentication, then turn off password login completely in the same location: sshd_config. Keys are far harder to brute-force than passwords.
  2. Disable root login over SSH and require a non-root user with sudo privileges instead; this is a security advantage that even without any change, one key compromising would limit the impact.
  3. Change the default SSH port away from 22 to cut down on automated scanning noise (not a security measure on its own, but it reduces log clutter).
  4. Restrict access by IP using your firewall or security group, allowing SSH only from known office or VPN IP ranges rather than the entire internet.
  5. Add a VPN as a connection layer for anyone accessing servers from outside a trusted network – a VPN like Planet VPN’s free VPN service can encrypt the connection between a remote worker’s laptop and the server before SSH traffic ever leaves their device, which matters especially on public wi-fi or shared networks.

Every step you take closes the doors that the attacker may open slightly, and when you combine everything, you would have a door to a series of locked gates.

Why Do I Need a Bastion Host?

When it comes to teams working with many servers, deploying a bastion host (jump box) may be a clean and effective way to solve the long-term problem. With this method, you only expose SSH to the bastion, and the other servers accept it only when it’s from the bastion’s internal IP. This centralizes logging and makes auditing access far simpler.

Using a virtual private network (VPN) and a bastion host together is perfectly fine – and many solutions use both: a safe way to access the private network via a VPN, followed by use of a bastion host to restrict which servers can be accessed. Some teams may decide to forgo the bastion because they don’t have the manpower to manage one, and so use a combination of a VPN and a set of firewall rules that still quite a bit lowers the exposure, but without the extra effort.

Mistakes Leading to Leaving Cloud Servers Open

The Mistakes That Cause Leaving Cloud Servers Open: Even the safest development teams may have slip-ups from time to time. One of the most frequent is leaving staged, or test servers with relaxed firewall rules equivalent to those of the production environment – hackers don’t concern themselves with which environment they first land on. Another frequent error is reusing the same SSH key on several servers and clients, causing one hacked laptop to compromise all servers that key has access to.

Another common human error is not removing or changing access when someone leaves the team, so stale credentials remain valid and accessible. At last, putting trust in the strategy of “security through obscurity” – meaning one thinks that setting up the unusual port or hiding the hostname from the public is actually sufficient security – creates a wrong impression of security. This is mostly true; in reality, modern-day attackers scan all ports anyway, and there is no way to hide from them.

System Administrators Guide to Secure Remote Access 

Prohibit SSH password logins totally and depend exclusively on key-based authentication

  • Surely no one wants to type in the password every time; because of this, use only key-based authentication 
  • Deter the user from logging in as root by default and instead use the sudo command to do root tasks
  • A firewall or security group rule can provide great help with IP address-based restrictions on SSH logins 
  • For access that comes from untrusted sources or external networks, use a secure tunnel like a vpn or bastion host
  • Periodically change SSH keys and inspect access lists
  • Maintain records of login attempts and detect brute-force attacks as quickly as possible

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the principal means by which cloud servers suffer break-ins through remote access?

By far the biggest reason why this can happen is unauthorized password-based SSH logins that have been cracked by brute force. The scenario is most likely to develop where the administrator allows root login via password and leaves the default port open.

Sufficient security measures for the server via SSH keys: Do you think it is safe to rely only on key authentication? 

It is true that SSH keys drastically decrease the danger of a successful brute-force attack. However, if there is only key authentication on the server, there are still risks – the server administrator can always enable root login or disable the IP-based login restrictions. So it is recommended to always have these three in the server configuration: disabled root login, restricted access to known IPs, and rotating the keys regularly as the main components of meaningful protection. 

Is it really necessary to set up a separate VPN network while I am able to connect via SSH keys? 

A VPN gives extra security by first encrypting your computer traffic before it reaches your network, where the SSH connection will be used. This is mostly important when working on untrusted networks – like public wi-fi – where there is a threat of a potential hacker in your local network looking at your data.

Bastion host vs VPN as methods of accessing the server? 

The bastion host works by funneling SSH sessions from many users through a single, carefully monitored server point while the rest of the network (and mostly the servers) remains protected from the internet. At the same time, a vpn will fully encrypt the communication between the user and the corporate network or servers. The combination is very common among larger security teams as a part of the defense-in-depth principle. 

How often should SSH keys be rotated? 

The ideal period to change your SSH keys depends on the security practices of your organization, but generally a good practice is to change SSH keys between 90 and 180 days, or in the case that the user who had access with the key leaves or is no longer able to be contacted, such as when a team member leaves.

Why is only changing the port number for SSH enough to secure that port?

Changing the port reduces automated scanning noise in your logs but isn’t a real security control on its own — port scanners check all ports, so it should never replace key-based auth and firewall rules.

#Secure #Remote #Access #Cloud #ServerCloud,remote access

Do you remember a few years ago when it was reported the Leprechaun franchise was coming back? Lionsgate apparently means it for real this time, as it’s brought on two writers to script its new film.

That would be Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, according to Deadline. After previously teaming on 2022’s Unhuman and the screen story for 2019’s Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, the pair have reunited to revitalize this dormant franchise. In the producer’s chair are father-and-son duo Oren and Miles Koules—longtime producers on the Saw franchise—with the latter telling Deadline he was ready to work on “a terrifying new way into the rich world of Leprechaun.“

Last we heard in 2023, Lionsgate had filmmaker Felipe Vargas on hand to direct a new Leprechaun in what would’ve been his feature film debut. (Vargas’ takes comes after Jane Schoenbrun was approached to helm a reboot a year prior, which they ultimately passed on in favor of I Saw the TV Glow.) Plans with Vargas fell through, but the studio’s not given up, likely because of the success Alien and Predator saw when they came back to theaters. And they’re not the only ones: Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Nightmare on Elm Street aren’t far behind, and Saw could be joining them as well.

Plot details on the Leprechaun revival are currently under wraps, but we’ll have more as news emerges—including whether Warwick Davis is game to make a return of some kind.

Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

#Lionsgate #Bring #Leprechaun #LifeLeprechaun,Lionsgate">Lionsgate Is Trying to Bring ‘Leprechaun’ Back to Life (Again) Do you remember a few years ago when it was reported the Leprechaun franchise was coming back? Lionsgate apparently means it for real this time, as it’s brought on two writers to script its new film. That would be Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, according to Deadline. After previously teaming on 2022’s Unhuman and the screen story for 2019’s Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, the pair have reunited to revitalize this dormant franchise. In the producer’s chair are father-and-son duo Oren and Miles Koules—longtime producers on the Saw franchise—with the latter telling Deadline he was ready to work on “a terrifying new way into the rich world of Leprechaun.“ Last we heard in 2023, Lionsgate had filmmaker Felipe Vargas on hand to direct a new Leprechaun in what would’ve been his feature film debut. (Vargas’ takes comes after Jane Schoenbrun was approached to helm a reboot a year prior, which they ultimately passed on in favor of I Saw the TV Glow.) Plans with Vargas fell through, but the studio’s not given up, likely because of the success Alien and Predator saw when they came back to theaters. And they’re not the only ones: Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Nightmare on Elm Street aren’t far behind, and Saw could be joining them as well. Plot details on the Leprechaun revival are currently under wraps, but we’ll have more as news emerges—including whether Warwick Davis is game to make a return of some kind. Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who. #Lionsgate #Bring #Leprechaun #LifeLeprechaun,Lionsgate

the Leprechaun franchise was coming back? Lionsgate apparently means it for real this time, as it’s brought on two writers to script its new film.

That would be Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, according to Deadline. After previously teaming on 2022’s Unhuman and the screen story for 2019’s Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, the pair have reunited to revitalize this dormant franchise. In the producer’s chair are father-and-son duo Oren and Miles Koules—longtime producers on the Saw franchise—with the latter telling Deadline he was ready to work on “a terrifying new way into the rich world of Leprechaun.“

Last we heard in 2023, Lionsgate had filmmaker Felipe Vargas on hand to direct a new Leprechaun in what would’ve been his feature film debut. (Vargas’ takes comes after Jane Schoenbrun was approached to helm a reboot a year prior, which they ultimately passed on in favor of I Saw the TV Glow.) Plans with Vargas fell through, but the studio’s not given up, likely because of the success Alien and Predator saw when they came back to theaters. And they’re not the only ones: Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Nightmare on Elm Street aren’t far behind, and Saw could be joining them as well.

Plot details on the Leprechaun revival are currently under wraps, but we’ll have more as news emerges—including whether Warwick Davis is game to make a return of some kind.

Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

#Lionsgate #Bring #Leprechaun #LifeLeprechaun,Lionsgate">Lionsgate Is Trying to Bring ‘Leprechaun’ Back to Life (Again)Lionsgate Is Trying to Bring ‘Leprechaun’ Back to Life (Again) Do you remember a few years ago when it was reported the Leprechaun franchise was coming back? Lionsgate apparently means it for real this time, as it’s brought on two writers to script its new film. That would be Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, according to Deadline. After previously teaming on 2022’s Unhuman and the screen story for 2019’s Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, the pair have reunited to revitalize this dormant franchise. In the producer’s chair are father-and-son duo Oren and Miles Koules—longtime producers on the Saw franchise—with the latter telling Deadline he was ready to work on “a terrifying new way into the rich world of Leprechaun.“ Last we heard in 2023, Lionsgate had filmmaker Felipe Vargas on hand to direct a new Leprechaun in what would’ve been his feature film debut. (Vargas’ takes comes after Jane Schoenbrun was approached to helm a reboot a year prior, which they ultimately passed on in favor of I Saw the TV Glow.) Plans with Vargas fell through, but the studio’s not given up, likely because of the success Alien and Predator saw when they came back to theaters. And they’re not the only ones: Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Nightmare on Elm Street aren’t far behind, and Saw could be joining them as well. Plot details on the Leprechaun revival are currently under wraps, but we’ll have more as news emerges—including whether Warwick Davis is game to make a return of some kind. Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who. #Lionsgate #Bring #Leprechaun #LifeLeprechaun,Lionsgate

Do you remember a few years ago when it was reported the Leprechaun franchise was coming back? Lionsgate apparently means it for real this time, as it’s brought on two writers to script its new film.

That would be Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, according to Deadline. After previously teaming on 2022’s Unhuman and the screen story for 2019’s Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, the pair have reunited to revitalize this dormant franchise. In the producer’s chair are father-and-son duo Oren and Miles Koules—longtime producers on the Saw franchise—with the latter telling Deadline he was ready to work on “a terrifying new way into the rich world of Leprechaun.“

Last we heard in 2023, Lionsgate had filmmaker Felipe Vargas on hand to direct a new Leprechaun in what would’ve been his feature film debut. (Vargas’ takes comes after Jane Schoenbrun was approached to helm a reboot a year prior, which they ultimately passed on in favor of I Saw the TV Glow.) Plans with Vargas fell through, but the studio’s not given up, likely because of the success Alien and Predator saw when they came back to theaters. And they’re not the only ones: Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Nightmare on Elm Street aren’t far behind, and Saw could be joining them as well.

Plot details on the Leprechaun revival are currently under wraps, but we’ll have more as news emerges—including whether Warwick Davis is game to make a return of some kind.

Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

#Lionsgate #Bring #Leprechaun #LifeLeprechaun,Lionsgate

The US Department of Commerce, which oversees the Census Bureau, is circulating a proposed rule that would cease the collection of demographic data on racial minorities and LGBTQ+ people and prevent undocumented immigrants from being counted in the 2030 census, according to documents viewed by WIRED.

The decision could have far-reaching implications for federal funding, particularly in states where there are substantial numbers of racial and ethnic minorities, as well as on immigrant communities across the country.

The proposed rule, which is being circulated across government agencies for review, says the census will eliminate questions about race and sexual orientation “to protect from any distortions created from the inclusion of personal questions.” The memo also states that “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politics [sic], or persons with ‘usual residence’ in the United States.”

This would likely require the reintroduction of a census question about a respondent’s citizenship. During Donald Trump’s first presidential term, Republicans attempted to add a citizenship question to the census for the first time since 1950. The effort was struck down by the Supreme Court, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the Court’s then-larger liberal bloc on the grounds that the justification for adding the question was “contrived.” The decision did not, though, find that citizenship questions are inherently unconstitutional.

The Department of Commerce did not reply to requests for comment.

“This is about the Voting Rights Act,” says Danah Boyd, a professor at Cornell University who studies the census, referencing the landmark voter protection legislation that the Supreme Court dismantled earlier this year. Eliminating the collection of these data, she says, would make it difficult to make basic assessments, like whether a congressional district is predominantly made of minorities.

“If we don’t know certain things, we can’t challenge them politically,” says Boyd. “If we don’t know that certain peoples live in a particular geography, we can’t say, ‘Oh my gosh, here’s some massive inequality.’”

Republicans and the Trump administration have long taken aim at the census. More recently, members of the Trump administration have attacked a little-known statistical method called “differential privacy,” which is used to prevent census data from being used to reidentify individual respondents, claiming that it makes the results inaccurate. In August 2025, Republican representative August Pfluger made another attempt to reintroduce a citizenship question on the census, sponsoring a bill called the COUNT Act, and in October, Republican senator Jim Banks of Indiana published a letter to Commerce secretary Howard Lutnick, writing, “There is a credible argument that the framers of the Constitution designed the Census to cover lawful inhabitants and not those who are present illegally.”

Census questions are set between two and three years in advance of the actual survey, based on priorities set by the administration. The data from the census inform everything from the apportionment of congressional seats to federal funding that is allocated based on the size of a population.

An employee at the Department of Health and Human Services, who asked to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak to the press, tells WIRED that “many HHS programs use Census data to appropriate funding. Removing undocumented individuals from the census will cause localities with high numbers of those populations to lose critical federal funding.”

The employee says that removal of racial categories could specifically impact Native populations, which sometimes receive specialized funding. “Some programs use the ‘American Indian or Alaska Native’ category from the Census to make determinations of grants set aside for Tribal entities,” they say.

#Census #Proposal #Stop #Counting #Undocumented #Immigrantsand #Ignore #Race #Sexual #Orientationus census,immigration,undocumented immigrants,race,lgbtq+">Census Proposal Would Stop Counting Undocumented Immigrants—and Ignore Race and Sexual OrientationThe US Department of Commerce, which oversees the Census Bureau, is circulating a proposed rule that would cease the collection of demographic data on racial minorities and LGBTQ+ people and prevent undocumented immigrants from being counted in the 2030 census, according to documents viewed by WIRED.The decision could have far-reaching implications for federal funding, particularly in states where there are substantial numbers of racial and ethnic minorities, as well as on immigrant communities across the country.The proposed rule, which is being circulated across government agencies for review, says the census will eliminate questions about race and sexual orientation “to protect from any distortions created from the inclusion of personal questions.” The memo also states that “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politics [sic], or persons with ‘usual residence’ in the United States.”This would likely require the reintroduction of a census question about a respondent’s citizenship. During Donald Trump’s first presidential term, Republicans attempted to add a citizenship question to the census for the first time since 1950. The effort was struck down by the Supreme Court, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the Court’s then-larger liberal bloc on the grounds that the justification for adding the question was “contrived.” The decision did not, though, find that citizenship questions are inherently unconstitutional.The Department of Commerce did not reply to requests for comment.“This is about the Voting Rights Act,” says Danah Boyd, a professor at Cornell University who studies the census, referencing the landmark voter protection legislation that the Supreme Court dismantled earlier this year. Eliminating the collection of these data, she says, would make it difficult to make basic assessments, like whether a congressional district is predominantly made of minorities.“If we don’t know certain things, we can’t challenge them politically,” says Boyd. “If we don’t know that certain peoples live in a particular geography, we can’t say, ‘Oh my gosh, here’s some massive inequality.’”Republicans and the Trump administration have long taken aim at the census. More recently, members of the Trump administration have attacked a little-known statistical method called “differential privacy,” which is used to prevent census data from being used to reidentify individual respondents, claiming that it makes the results inaccurate. In August 2025, Republican representative August Pfluger made another attempt to reintroduce a citizenship question on the census, sponsoring a bill called the COUNT Act, and in October, Republican senator Jim Banks of Indiana published a letter to Commerce secretary Howard Lutnick, writing, “There is a credible argument that the framers of the Constitution designed the Census to cover lawful inhabitants and not those who are present illegally.”Census questions are set between two and three years in advance of the actual survey, based on priorities set by the administration. The data from the census inform everything from the apportionment of congressional seats to federal funding that is allocated based on the size of a population.An employee at the Department of Health and Human Services, who asked to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak to the press, tells WIRED that “many HHS programs use Census data to appropriate funding. Removing undocumented individuals from the census will cause localities with high numbers of those populations to lose critical federal funding.”The employee says that removal of racial categories could specifically impact Native populations, which sometimes receive specialized funding. “Some programs use the ‘American Indian or Alaska Native’ category from the Census to make determinations of grants set aside for Tribal entities,” they say.#Census #Proposal #Stop #Counting #Undocumented #Immigrantsand #Ignore #Race #Sexual #Orientationus census,immigration,undocumented immigrants,race,lgbtq+

Census Bureau, is circulating a proposed rule that would cease the collection of demographic data on racial minorities and LGBTQ+ people and prevent undocumented immigrants from being counted in the 2030 census, according to documents viewed by WIRED.

The decision could have far-reaching implications for federal funding, particularly in states where there are substantial numbers of racial and ethnic minorities, as well as on immigrant communities across the country.

The proposed rule, which is being circulated across government agencies for review, says the census will eliminate questions about race and sexual orientation “to protect from any distortions created from the inclusion of personal questions.” The memo also states that “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politics [sic], or persons with ‘usual residence’ in the United States.”

This would likely require the reintroduction of a census question about a respondent’s citizenship. During Donald Trump’s first presidential term, Republicans attempted to add a citizenship question to the census for the first time since 1950. The effort was struck down by the Supreme Court, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the Court’s then-larger liberal bloc on the grounds that the justification for adding the question was “contrived.” The decision did not, though, find that citizenship questions are inherently unconstitutional.

The Department of Commerce did not reply to requests for comment.

“This is about the Voting Rights Act,” says Danah Boyd, a professor at Cornell University who studies the census, referencing the landmark voter protection legislation that the Supreme Court dismantled earlier this year. Eliminating the collection of these data, she says, would make it difficult to make basic assessments, like whether a congressional district is predominantly made of minorities.

“If we don’t know certain things, we can’t challenge them politically,” says Boyd. “If we don’t know that certain peoples live in a particular geography, we can’t say, ‘Oh my gosh, here’s some massive inequality.’”

Republicans and the Trump administration have long taken aim at the census. More recently, members of the Trump administration have attacked a little-known statistical method called “differential privacy,” which is used to prevent census data from being used to reidentify individual respondents, claiming that it makes the results inaccurate. In August 2025, Republican representative August Pfluger made another attempt to reintroduce a citizenship question on the census, sponsoring a bill called the COUNT Act, and in October, Republican senator Jim Banks of Indiana published a letter to Commerce secretary Howard Lutnick, writing, “There is a credible argument that the framers of the Constitution designed the Census to cover lawful inhabitants and not those who are present illegally.”

Census questions are set between two and three years in advance of the actual survey, based on priorities set by the administration. The data from the census inform everything from the apportionment of congressional seats to federal funding that is allocated based on the size of a population.

An employee at the Department of Health and Human Services, who asked to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak to the press, tells WIRED that “many HHS programs use Census data to appropriate funding. Removing undocumented individuals from the census will cause localities with high numbers of those populations to lose critical federal funding.”

The employee says that removal of racial categories could specifically impact Native populations, which sometimes receive specialized funding. “Some programs use the ‘American Indian or Alaska Native’ category from the Census to make determinations of grants set aside for Tribal entities,” they say.

#Census #Proposal #Stop #Counting #Undocumented #Immigrantsand #Ignore #Race #Sexual #Orientationus census,immigration,undocumented immigrants,race,lgbtq+">Census Proposal Would Stop Counting Undocumented Immigrants—and Ignore Race and Sexual Orientation

The US Department of Commerce, which oversees the Census Bureau, is circulating a proposed rule that would cease the collection of demographic data on racial minorities and LGBTQ+ people and prevent undocumented immigrants from being counted in the 2030 census, according to documents viewed by WIRED.

The decision could have far-reaching implications for federal funding, particularly in states where there are substantial numbers of racial and ethnic minorities, as well as on immigrant communities across the country.

The proposed rule, which is being circulated across government agencies for review, says the census will eliminate questions about race and sexual orientation “to protect from any distortions created from the inclusion of personal questions.” The memo also states that “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politics [sic], or persons with ‘usual residence’ in the United States.”

This would likely require the reintroduction of a census question about a respondent’s citizenship. During Donald Trump’s first presidential term, Republicans attempted to add a citizenship question to the census for the first time since 1950. The effort was struck down by the Supreme Court, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the Court’s then-larger liberal bloc on the grounds that the justification for adding the question was “contrived.” The decision did not, though, find that citizenship questions are inherently unconstitutional.

The Department of Commerce did not reply to requests for comment.

“This is about the Voting Rights Act,” says Danah Boyd, a professor at Cornell University who studies the census, referencing the landmark voter protection legislation that the Supreme Court dismantled earlier this year. Eliminating the collection of these data, she says, would make it difficult to make basic assessments, like whether a congressional district is predominantly made of minorities.

“If we don’t know certain things, we can’t challenge them politically,” says Boyd. “If we don’t know that certain peoples live in a particular geography, we can’t say, ‘Oh my gosh, here’s some massive inequality.’”

Republicans and the Trump administration have long taken aim at the census. More recently, members of the Trump administration have attacked a little-known statistical method called “differential privacy,” which is used to prevent census data from being used to reidentify individual respondents, claiming that it makes the results inaccurate. In August 2025, Republican representative August Pfluger made another attempt to reintroduce a citizenship question on the census, sponsoring a bill called the COUNT Act, and in October, Republican senator Jim Banks of Indiana published a letter to Commerce secretary Howard Lutnick, writing, “There is a credible argument that the framers of the Constitution designed the Census to cover lawful inhabitants and not those who are present illegally.”

Census questions are set between two and three years in advance of the actual survey, based on priorities set by the administration. The data from the census inform everything from the apportionment of congressional seats to federal funding that is allocated based on the size of a population.

An employee at the Department of Health and Human Services, who asked to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak to the press, tells WIRED that “many HHS programs use Census data to appropriate funding. Removing undocumented individuals from the census will cause localities with high numbers of those populations to lose critical federal funding.”

The employee says that removal of racial categories could specifically impact Native populations, which sometimes receive specialized funding. “Some programs use the ‘American Indian or Alaska Native’ category from the Census to make determinations of grants set aside for Tribal entities,” they say.

#Census #Proposal #Stop #Counting #Undocumented #Immigrantsand #Ignore #Race #Sexual #Orientationus census,immigration,undocumented immigrants,race,lgbtq+

Post Comment