RE: protect your system from altered or "patched" MI programs...

[Neil Palmer <NeilP@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom,

I'm not disagreeing with IBM's reason for doing this, and actually support
it, but feel they should send out a letter to all customers (as they did a
year or so ago when they introduced a series of security related PTF's) so
it can't be claimed they obtained your approval on the sly to implement
this function.  As you know there are lawyers in the US who will take on
any case, whether or not it has any merits, so don't doubt IBM could be
taken to court over this.
Yes, things often break after PTF's are applied, but that (hopefully)
isn't intentional.  In this case it will be intentional, as the cover
letter (for those who manage to see it when they load a cum package
containing this little bomb) clearly shows.

...Neil





thomas@inorbit.com
Sent by: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
2001/11/21 19:39
Please respond to midrange-l


        To:     midrange-l@midrange.com
        cc:
        Subject:        RE: protect your system from altered or "patched" MI 
programs...


Neil:

On Wed, 21 November 2001, Neil Palmer wrote:

> Especially unethical if they stick this PTF on a cumulative package, as
> they no doubt will.  I'm sure there would be good grounds to sue IBM if
> someone's code breaks because this PTF was snuck into a cum package and
> someone didn't print off and read every cover letter to find this gem.

Why unethical? And what grounds for suit? Code breaks often happen after
PTFs. (Review the history of v4r3 DB group PTFs.)

Tom Liotta

--
Tom Liotta
The PowerTech Group, Inc.
19426 68th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Phone  253-872-7788
Fax  253-872-7904
http://www.400Security.com