× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  1.  Home
  2. MIDRANGE-L
  3. February 2004

RE: Can We retire the QSECOFR userid?

I can think of a couple reasons not to use QSECOFR all the time:

1. Object ownership - it might be possible to exceed the limits on number of objects owned

2. Audit trail - using the generic IDs means you have no idea who did what to whom

Vern

At 04:49 PM 2/9/2004 -0500, you wrote: 
Does anyone really see a difference between having the generic QSECOFR or
a generic MYSECOFR with the same authorities?  Granted, there are some
very limited applications where you must be QSECOFR, (ptf's ain't one of
them).  But does creating the MYSECOFR give you any additional security?
None that I can think of.  Oh, I suppose you could disable QSECOFR and
then a hack trying it would have a bear of a time getting in.  But, other
than that?  If so, why bother?

Rob Berendt



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...
Follow-Ups:
Replies:
Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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.