× 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.




Maybe it's time to just try the DCR and see if I get shot down it flames?

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


|-----------------------------+-------------------------------------------|
|   "John Earl"               |                                           |
|   <john.earl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |                                           |
|   Sent by:                  |                                         To|
|   midrange-l-bounces@midrang|                                    "Midran|
|   e.com                     |                                    ge     |
|                             |                                    Systems|
|   07/20/2004 03:27 PM       |                                    Technic|
|                             |                                    al     |
|         Please respond to   |                                    Discuss|
|         Midrange Systems    |                                    ion"   |
|       Technical Discussion  |                                    <midran|
|      <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxx|                                    ge-l@mi|
|                m>           |                                    drange.|
|                             |                                    com>   |
|                             |                                         cc|
|                             |                                           |
|                             |                                    Subject|
|                             |                                    RE:    |
|                             |                                    Adopted|
|                             |                                    authori|
|                             |                                    ty vs  |
|                             |                                    profile|
|                             |                                    switchi|
|                             |                                    ng     |
|                             |                                           |
|                             |                                           |
|                             |                                           |
|                             |                                           |
|                             |                                           |
|                             |                                           |
|-----------------------------+-------------------------------------------|






Rob,

> But they've already introduced that security exposure by
> supporting
> profile switching.  So why not just have adopted authority
> work in the
> first place?

Again,  I don't see profile swapping as a security exposure all by
itself, but maybe we can just agree to disagree on this point as it's
not central to either of our arguments.


> I understand what you are saying about changes breaking
> other code.  But I
> don't find that applicable in this case.  I can already
> create a program
> that does a CALL QCMD, owned by QSECOFR and any user can
> run it and then
> execute the following command:
> CRTUSRPRF USRPRF(DELME) USRCLS(*SECOFR)
> But they can't run this command:
> CRTUSRPRF USRPRF(DELME2) USRCLS(*SECOFR) GRPPRF(SSA)
> OWNER(*GRPPRF)
> CPF9802-Not authorized to object SSA in QSYS.
> But then user DELME can sign on and do CHGUSRPRF DELME
> GRPPRF(SSA)
> OWNER(*GRPPRF)

The argument against breaking code goes something like this...

If I wrote an adopted authority program that does not allow my users to
have access to Group profiles (and in fact I'm counting on this
behavior), and then IBM changes the basic behavior to "fix" this aspect
of adopted authority so that users now have this ability, a potential
security exposure is introduced.

I don't like this argument, in fact I can cite at least two current
examples where some section of IBM code doesn't subscribe to their
S.O.P, but because it's been that way for a couple of releases the
developers are fighting making changes.  I have pretty compelling
arguments, but that status quo seems to be stronger than operational
consistency :(

jte


--
John Earl | Chief Technology Officer
The PowerTech Group
19426 68th Ave. S
Seattle, WA 98032
(253) 872-7788 ext. 302
john.earl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.powertech.com


--
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.