FTP server authority issue & adoption

[John Carr <74711.77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

RE:     FTP server authority issue

>Speaking strictly for myself (and intending to send a few notes on
>this), I believe the correct behavior in this situation is for the FTP
>server to determine if proper authorization exists for the client (that
>is, proper authority to the library etc.) and then having the server
>?adopt whatever authority is necessary for it to provide the function.
>
>In its current implementation, this could be adopting authority
>sufficient to run QSYS/CRTPF (but as this usage of CRTPF is not
>documented (that I can find) it should be transparent to the user).  The
>end user interface should remain the same from one release to another.
>
>Bruce Vining

Bruce,
I am glad you brought up the "Adopt" issue.   Who was the "Wise" person who
designed the IFS in such a way that it did not allow the programs accessing
it to adopt authority to access it????   If you run a program that access 
a directory on the IFS the Program adoption does not work.  I asked 
Paul Remtema about this at COMMON and he was surprised/shocked to hear that
adoption didn't work.   Does Rochester realize how stupid and troublesome
this is???   I have read articles that say I should call an API to,  and 
listen to this,   Change the Running user profile on the fly in the program
to a user profile that has rights to the IFS directory !!!  I under stand
that this is not an architectural change but a minor change under the 
covers.   Talk to Ray Bills, Dave Boutcher or whoever and say "Let's fix this 
stupid
oversight!!!!!"

I have a program that builds an History capture of the entire IFS
(Like a big DIR/WRKLNK to a file + more) and in order to run the capture
it has to be submitted personally by QSECOFR or QGOD.

Is this dumb or what.  Does this same thing effect FTP in the same way??

John Carr
EdgeTech -  Have Classes, Will Travel
804-739-7689

------------------------------------


>
>I don't know what we're disagreeing on - what you said is exactly the
>point I was making. IBM should _NOT_ be using CRTPF - especially not the
>QSYS qualified version - for the FTP PUT command. It _IS_ a security
>loophole, and one that was introduced somewhere between V3R2 and V4R2.
>But I _WOULD_ expect that the interface (from the FTP client's point of
>view) remains the same from one release of OS/400 to the next.
>

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@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
+---
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@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
+---