On 5/12/14 4:16 PM, Mike Cunningham wrote:
Routine audits of the system audit logs looking for an security admin
who gave themselves access to a file they don't need to access
Hmm. By which time said admin would have probably had plenty of time to get his or her hands into the cookie jar. Sounds "REactive, rather than PROactive," and not much of an improvement over those same audits catching the rogue admin actually ACCESSING the data.
Seems to me that a proper implementation would be like the usual drill of two keys needed to access a safe deposit box: to grant a new user access to the restricted object, one ought to need BOTH a user WITH access to the object, and a user able to GRANT access to it, to sign off on the authority.
Of course, up through V7R1, they would by definition be the same user.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2015 by MIDRANGE dot 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 here. If you have questions about this, please contact