Re: CISC to RISC - why not FRCOBJCVN on reload?

Excerpts from midrange-l: 14-Dec-97 Re: CISC to RISC - why not .. "Al
Barsa, Jr."@ibm.net (1687*) 

> It's unclear to me why IBM added the FRCOBJCVN feature.  If you wanted 
> immediate access to the program without having the user get the 'Converting 
> to 64 bit...' message, it would have been a better design to launch 
> asynchronous tasks to do object conversion in the background. 

IIRC, one of the motivations for providing FRCOBJCVN was for the
profoundly security conscious folks out there.  Retranslation is an
inherently precise and picky process -- one of the things it's really
sensitive about is the subject of maliciously modified program objects
(i.e. 'trojan horses').  Granted, any undetected IMPI-level hacks would
be rendered impotent upon the required retranslation, but the fact that
a program had *ever* been modified in that fashion must give us pause. 

With FRCOBJCVN, programs that fail to retranslate will never actually
make it onto the target machine's DASD, which warms the cockles of the
paranoid heart. 

"Just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean they're NOT out to get
you."  *8-) 

  ___   _           Blair Wyman                  IBM Rochester 
 ( /_)  /  _  ' _   (507)253-2891           wyman@vnet.ibm.com 
__/__)_/_<_/_/_/_'  Opinions expressed may not be those of IBM. 





+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---