This is someone you can never count on to do anything they don’t want to do. Someone who will destroy things if they don’t get their way. Triple letters won’t touch him.

definitely, but people can change

a lot of this was social engineering

people always have a high and mighty mentality when talking about social engineering, most attacks today use some form of social engineering and have for a long time, if not always.

Social engineering, arguably, is one of the harder things to learn.

It's a collection of soft skills, and if you've been paying attention to rank and file tech jobs, places are looking for people with soft skills because they're so impractical to train.

This goes down to your basic help desk tech.

Anyone with an interest in computers can sit down and learn how to analyze and exploit weakness in code. In fact, it's a fun puzzle. Dealing with other people, let alone establishing oneself as another person and fucking SELLING that character enough to get what you need?

People write off social engineering far too quickly. It's quick, it's effective, and if done well, the person you exploited doesn't even realize they've been tricked.

Social engineering is a major part of pen-testing and of hacking. It's still impressive despite any carelessness.

Are you kidding me? Aggressive, unstable and destructive seem to be core tenants for the CEOs of many large scale blue chip firms.

If you want actual penetration defense, you absolutely hire the unstable person. I'm not saying you put him or her in the centre desk on the main floor, let him or her work from an environment where they are most comfortable, and one that supports them best.

If you want window dressing, hire the neat and tidy person, who couldn't actually penetrate an Excel sheet.

If you don't think MI6 have their grubby hands all over this deciding what to do with the boy you should think again.

He's too risky