Re: Changing to security level 40. -- MIDRANGE-L

× 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.

Subject: Re: Changing to security level 40.
From: Ed Fishel <edfishel@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:13:08 -0600
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Rob Berendt wrote on 01/27/2006 09:27:48 AM:

> Wouldn't most of the techniques used to test a user's authority to an
> object flag the same message?  For example wouldn't
> CHKOBJ OBJ(MYLIB/MYOBJ) OBJTYPE(*FILE) AUT(*ALL)
> MONMSG MSGID(CPF9802 CPF9820) EXEC(DO)
> log the journal entry?

This is simple enough to test. I just verified it that no AF audit record
is written when CHKOBJ sends the CPF9802 (Not authorized to object)
message.

Ed Fishel,
edfishel@xxxxxxxxxx

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Changing to security level 40. , rob

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.