> From: thomas@inorbit.com
> > Just because data does not normally change
> > doen't mean it should be left unsecured.
> And, of course, simple defacement of "static" HTML documents can
> cause significant trouble.

Valid points, but now you've veered off into website security, which is
different than AS/400 security.  They can be the same if you use the IBM
HTTP Server, not so sure with IBM Apache.  And in any event, that's not the
original discussion, which I continue to point out was about the dangers of
having AS/400 user IDs and passwords in the clear in the wild (even if
they're embedded in a PC file somewhere).

The problem with these discussions is that we tend to veer off of the
original point, and then start making counterpoints which really have
nothing to do with the original discussion.  That's how people get quoted
out of context, and how misinformation spreads.

For example, when I said "unsecured", it was in the context of unsecured
read access, not unsecured update.  However, as the thread progresses,
people are responding as if I said that you should leave your static web
pages open to update.


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


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

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 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.