RE: Security Question

Hi Pat

For as long as I can remember I've always had a home-grown command to start
and end the system and at every place I've ever been responsible for
starting and stopping the system I have built something to do this just as
soon as I could. The CPP has just about always used adopted authority to run
as QSECOFR.

I got burned one too many times (especially on start-ups) needing authority
to this or that command, especially changes to TCP security and QPGMR
profiles after OS Upgrades.

On the occasions where I have had to shut down and restart manually - say to
put in disks or do an OS Upgrade - I generally use the QSECOFR profile or a
derivative so I don't get bitten by just these issues. My view is that the
tasks makes it wise to have access to these passwords (I always get SST in
addition to QSECOFR) so I use them for the duration of the operation.

Note: I'm not recommending using these profiles on a day-to-day basis to
avoid authority issues, I'm talking about specific operations. The programs
that adopt authority should be used for standard stuff and secured as
appropriate.

Regards
Evan Harris

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat Barber
Sent: Wednesday, 9 January 2008 11:02 a.m.
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Security Question

I did not ... I think this has something to do with V5R4.

I haven't run across this before, since we seldom, if ever
do a manual power down at any of the sites I work.


rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

I used a utility, SCNMSGF, to search QCPFMSG for "authorized to this
command" and didn't get any hits. I beat on it some more and settled with
"authorized to command" (dropped "this") and got a few hits.
M