RE: Ignore *SYSTEM state of objects?? Search 400 article.

>> As an aside, if you're in SST to do this frequently, it's much less
>> time consuming to modify the SLIC module that actually does the
>> checking of states/domains and 'turn' the checking off once and for
>> all...
>
> Is this a good thing to do? I would think that circumventing IBM's
> security would be less than desireable.

I second that. Hacking programs to system state may be a common technique
among SOME MI programmers, but it's one for which I've done my best to
remain ignorant of the details, because (1) nearly everything I write is
part of some commercial product that's expected to be
Security-50-friendly, and (2) commercial products with hacks in them (the
only reason I know of to patch to system state) tend to be less reliable
(and less trusted) than those that stick to supported APIs.

While I still think it ridiculous to keep a system locked up with
QFRCCVNRST set so high it won't accept non-observable programs compiled on
an earlier release, this is a genuine security threat, and if some vendor
is still putting out commercial products (or custom jobs, for that matter)
that aren't Security-50-friendly, you're probably better off looking for a
different software vendor.

--
JHHL