RE: iSeries vs. Unix vs. SQL Server vs. Oracle & Security/Data separation???

[McIntyre Don <dnmcin@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- "DeLong, Eric" <EDeLong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Don,
> 
> I expect the the recommendations are, generally,
> what is considered best
> practice.  It's generally unsafe to expose your
> critical databases (and
> servers) to the public directly. 

I understand the concept and reasoning behind this.

This practice moots the 1 iSeries Server argument. 
'Now I HAVE to have more than one Server to provide
proper security'.  And it doesn't matter if the
deployment server is iSeries (according to the
'Experts')
  
Now what I believe and reality may not be the same in
this case, but here goes...IBM touts the iSeries as
the most secure or securable server on the Market. 
The concept of DMZ, Data separation is a necessity
when using PC Servers, and that this concept and
practice is widely used by PC administrators in order
to secure their vulnerable PC platforms.  They have no
other way.  They don't have an Object based system or
built in security, as the iSeries.

The problem is that if I go to 1 Server as most
respondents in this lists suggest, then I'm going
against the IBM recommendation and I do so at my own
security risk.

I know that nothing is 100% secure, but instead of the
separation, I would like to be advised on how to make
my System secure using one server, as everyone here is
advocating.  And I would also like for IBM to
recognize 1 Server as being a viable option.

Don McIntyre




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com