× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: RE: Level 50
  • From: "Steve Glanstein" <mic@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 01:20:06 -1000
  • Cc: "Al Barsa, Jr." <barsa@xxxxxxx>

Al and others:

You ask why anyone would run on level 50?  Several reasons:

1.      Software designers who test their products at level 50 will have a much
greater
        certainty that they will run at lower security levels.

2.      A consultant who is tasked with doing the "best" job to secure a
networked computer
        certainly owes the client a duty to maximize security in a manner that 
is
con-
        sistent with the existing work environment.

3.      I sure would like somebody to prove to me that there is a "great"
performance
        degradation with level 50.  Most of our RISC clients are on 50 and they
don't
        know the difference, aside from the fact that they originally approved 
it.

I remember my days flying a corporate jet (not so long ago) and flight
instructing.  We used to make sure that all pilots from the student pilot
to the airline pilot understood the concept that they should use all
equipment available to perform a professional flight.  They owed that not
just to themselves but also to the innocent and totally trusting passengers
in the back of the airplane!

Level 50 does more parameter checking between user and system state
programs.  This will even become more important as API usage increases.  As
a consultant who has seen the damage from some wayward MI programs, this is
certainly a relatively simple use of increasing your system integrity.


>First of all, it is certainly plausible to create a domain violation in
>RPG/400.  If it worked on V3R7, and fails in V4R1,(with both releases at
>L40 or higher) this should be reported as a bug.

>Secondly, why is anyone (other than DOD) running at L50?  (This is a
>serious, not a rhetorical question.)

>Secondly, why is anyone (other than DOD) running at L50?  (This is a
>serious, not a rhetorical question.)

>Al Barsa, Jr. - Account for Midrange-L
>Barsa Consulting, LLC. 
>400 > 390


+---
| 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
+---


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.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 on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.