> From: firstname.lastname@example.org > > > 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. Joe
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.