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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jt [mailto:jt@xxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 4:37 PM
> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
> Subject: RE: Ignore *SYSTEM state of objects?? Search 400 article.
> 
> Thank you, John.  Im(ns...;-)ho:  Sure the info's available (and go out on
> limb and would "guess" Phil's done these things), but the point of
> broadcasting to entire world, and recommending the practice for EVERYbody
> is...?!???!?
> 

I don't see the harm in broadcasting the 'how-to' as was posted on that site, 
for the following reasons - which I've already stated;

1. The method is documented elsewhere.
2. To be able to restore that program, patched as described, onto another 
system is almost impossible - I say almost because I have never run a system at 
QSECURITY level 10 and tried to see what happens.
3. QFRCCVNRST & QALWOBJRST are your friends.

As for reasons to do it, there are a few, mainly for in-house utilities that 
are written while waiting for the API's to catch-up. There are a number of 
useful utilities written before IBM created API's to get (or modify) 
information that even the mainstream iSeries trade mags have printed that will 
work at seclvl 20 but break at 30+ without patching the code.

You should have noticed I haven't advocated using it in 'products' you by from 
vendors, because I don't - there's absolutely no need for it.

--phil