Re: Securing output queues

On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 21:17:40 +0200, "Henrik Krebs" <hkrebs@hkrebs.dk> wrote:

>I must admit, that my first reaction was: Do they really care about
>security in a shop with several ordinary users having *ALLOBJ. The days
>of menu-security are way past in theese networking days.
>
>Question: Do those users have CA/400-access to 'QSYS.LIB/....'?

I'm a programmer, not a security guard! :) 

I fully agree. Menu security is doesn't cut it, but if that's all people know
and they don't take the time to learn the new features of the system....

Seriously, though, before I was hired on, we went through a security audit -
command line access and spool file/outq security were the big troublemakers.
In addition, as people needed authority to do "stuff", the easy out was given
to them. Because of an upcoming IS audit and a minor security problem
(software, not hardware), I was asked what I knew about securing outqs and
such...

It's not my choice that security is the way it is. (Not an excuse, but) we
have several packages, and security is a bit hairy. Plus, I'm in an
environment where roles are not clearly delineated, and the rule of thumb is
"get it working", not "get it working the way it should be". And that's all I
can say.

And, yes, people probably have access to QSYS.LIB...

Loyd

--  
"If we wanted more leisure, we'd invent machines
 that do things less efficiently." --Calvin & Hobbes
lgoodbar@watervalley.net  ICQ#504581  http://www.watervalley.net/users/lgoodbar/
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---