Re: BPCS 6.04 Security

[Clare.Holtham@xxxxxxxxx]

Dean,
With respect, slow sign-on has been a feature of BPCS since Version 5, when
the security logic was re-written, though V6 is a big improvement over V5,
and it does not hap[pen at all if the users are entered as type 'S'. In V4
BPCS, the security checking (authorised programs etc) was done at the Menu
Option level. In V5 and up, a table was built at sign-on. This means that
in V4 you could change a user's authorities in the ZSC file and it would
take effect immediately. Now they have to sign off and on again for it to
take effect, and the security info is in about 5 or 6 files instead of just
the ZSC file. Because BPCS reads the ZXO file at sign-on, if a user has a
lot of authorised or excluded programs etc defined, this can take some
time. Creating an index over the ZXO file helps.
regards,
Clare




DAsmussen@aol.com on 26/09/98 04:01:45

Please respond to BPCS-L@midrange.com

To:   BPCS-L@midrange.com
cc:    (bcc: Clare Holtham/UK/SSA_EUROPE)
Subject:  Re: BPCS 6.04 Security




Marie,
In a message dated 98-09-24 09:00:56 EDT, you write:
> Does anyone have a matrix of how BPCS 6.04 security works.  It seems
>  that if the user is tagged as S then it does not check any further.  If
>  the user is U then the signon screen sometimes takes 1 minute.  Could it
>  be a logical file issue??
I am unaware of anything that would affect 6.04 security as far as signon
delay time is concerned.  Of course, I'm running 6.0.02.  The only
significant
difference between 5.1.01 (which we _WERE_ running) and 6.0.02 has been the
action code and function key-level security in certain programs.  Neither
of
the latter should affect signon speed.  Have you checked the joblog of the
users that are taking so long to sign on?  We upgraded to OS/400 V4R1 on
our
production box last weekend, and suddenly started getting "Unable to
allocate
object Qsumpinsumpinsumpin" messages during S/O release (no, it's _NOT_ a
19
character object name, I just couldn't remember the _REAL_ object name).
The
message was in the joblog, but did not appear to the user nor did it appear
in
the system log nor the system operator message queue.  We filed a complaint
with 1-800-WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT (IBM Service) this morning.
The slow user's joblog might provide some insight, I don't see any way that
BPCS could be causing the problem...
HTH,
Dean Asmussen
Enterprise Systems Consulting, Inc.
Fuquay-Varina, NC  USA
E-Mail:  DAsmussen@aol.com
"I wish people who had trouble communicating would just shut up." -- Tom
Lehrer
+---
| This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
+---







+---
| This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
+---