× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



To discuss this rationally you have to first think of pre-V5R1 and V5R1 and beyond "program models". I used quotes in the previous sentence because I'm using my own definition of program model.

When you compile a program (pre- or post V5R1), you end up with 3 types of the things in the PGM object: 1) source statements, 2) creation templates, and 3) object code. The object code was always available. Anyone willing and able to read object code and produce source statements (manually or automatically) could do that pre- or post- V5R1.

Pre-V5R1, when observability was removed, items 1 and 2 were removed from the PGM object. Removing creation templates at that time was done not so much for protecting intellectual property as it was to save disk space. This left the object code which, as stated above, could still be reverse engineered.

At V5R1, IBM began removing only the source code statements. Starting in V5R1 removing observability only removes the source code statements, not the creation templates.

From a "protecting intellectual property" point of view, the question is "do creation templates make it easier for someone to steal intellectual property in the form of source code?" The answer is a great big no. Creation templates are much more difficult to reverse engineer than object code. They do not contain programming statements, but templates of information read by the trusted translator. One reason is that the creation template format is not published as machine instructions are. Another is that creation templates are compressed using a proprietary algorithm to save space.

None of this means that creation templates CAN'T be reverse engineered. All it means is that someone wishing to steal your intellectual property will find it much easier to do so by reverse engineer the machine code rather than the creation templates.

Is there an INCREASED probability of your intellectual property being stolen because creation templates are saved when observability is removed? No. The probability of this happening is the same as before.

Patrick Botz
Vice President, Security Consulting
Group8 Security, Inc
Business : 1-775-852-8887
Home/Office: 1-507-285-9048
Mobile : 1-507-250-5644
http://www.group8security.com
mailto:Pat.Botz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

___________________________

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any attachment to this email message contain information that may be privileged and confidential. This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named above (the recipient) and may not be forwarded to or shared with any third party. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in error, please notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at 775-852-8887 and delete this message. This notice is automatically appended to each email message leaving Group8 Security, Inc. Thank You.



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.