× 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.



But that's different than a shared MYSECOFR.

Rob Berendt
-- 
Group Dekko Services, LLC
Dept 01.073
PO Box 2000
Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com





"Bruce Barrett" <bruce.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
02/09/2004 06:34 PM
Please respond to
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
"Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Fax to

Subject
RE: Can We retire the QSECOFR userid?






At our shop, each of the system programmers has a "Q" profile.  It has
the same authority as QSECOFR but, is part of the QSECOFR group.  The
owner of the owner is the *GROUP.
This way I have the authority I need to do my job, and we review by user
if necessary.
The only time we use QSECOFR is when we load a new third party product
that requires or checks for QSECOFR.
 

Bruce Barrett


-----Original Message-----
From: Vern Hamberg [mailto:vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 3:17 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: 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


_______________________________________________
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.


_______________________________________________
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing 
list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

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.