Go to the knowledge center if you want details. It may be that the ability to put someone under this new function usage, that only QSECOFR or *SECOFR class can do it.

Come on James, you know that IBM is smarter than you are giving them credit for. So instead of spreading FUD, go read the documentation, then come back with issues if there are any you see.

As to logging, now I'm assuming that the assignment of function usage is auditable - auditing is something YOU as the customer have to turn on and set up.

As to rogue admins, hey, you end up having to trust your people at some level. Trust and audit, right? In the corporate world, it isn't Trust and Obey, I hope.


On 5/13/2014 11:10 AM, James H. H. Lampert wrote:
On 5/12/14 8:49 PM, Vernon Hamberg wrote:
It is definitely proactive.

Not if there is nothing to PREVENT a rogue administrator from giving himself or herself, or some "strawman" user, the authority in question. Not "log it for the auditors if it happens," not even "alert the auditors immediately if it happens"; PREVENT.

Without active prevention, it still sounds to me like "security theatre." The same kind of "security theatre" that, in airline passenger screening, made the World Trade Center Atrocities possible.


This thread ...


Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page