RE: Beginner question re: CPYBTL

| From: jt <jt@ee.net>
| > Are You telling me that, because a pointer is not generated in firmware,
| > basically NO iSeries 400 can secure it's programs and data...?!?
|
| yes, that is correct
| >
| > If so then, as others have pointed out before, there is a limit
| to how much
| > this SHOULD be discussed on this forum.
|
| nonsense, sticking your head in the sand is no good.
| Security by obscurity is no good. On the contrary, this issue should
| be published widely to force IBM to do something about it.
|
| >
| >
| > But how MANY people CAN do this, besides Yourself...?
|
| many, hundreds, and the crooks aren't telling anybody.

Well, Leif...

I've been considering this a fair bit.  I'm not question YOUR principles..
..just this one.

It is NOT nonsense, and NOT sticking Your head in the sand to maintain
"security by obscurity".

NOT saying this is the BEST security...  But "security by obscurity" beats
the hail outta ...

===> NO-SECURITY-WHATSOEVER-by-widely-publishing-security-holes.

(We're talking iSeries Division, not MicroShaft here, right?)



Unless You are saying YOU have the resources to fix this problem, of course.
And unless You are saying You have exhausted ALL avenues with IBM to get the
problem fixed...  Perhaps this discussion should move to the Non-Tech list,
where a wider variety of opinion is available (and You aren't the
moderator...  lol...!).  Perhaps there is no need to discuss this
further...?

I actually DO have some experience observing people's efforts to try to
"force" IBM to do particular things, btw.  I believe (rather that state "I
KNOW FOR A FACT") that it is a strategy GUARANTEED to fail in large part.