Re: Test/Development Box Sign on Issue

Thanks I "finally" picked the magic words for a Google search and got
"official" <well it came from IBM website) method(s) for solving...

On 7/17/06, Jerry Adams <jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It's a long shot, but you might try IPLing into Dedicated Service Tools
(no, I don't know how to do that on a 520 even though I have one;
probably something in InfoCenter somewhere on this).  Anyway, the thing
is if you can do that you might be able to sign on as QSECOFR (this is
different from system security's QSECOFR - they may have different
passwords and DST's is case sensitive).  If you can, you can use it to
reset/change the password for OS/400's QSECOFR.


This may not be that long of a shot.  Most people don't change the DST
passwords as frequently as they do user profiles.  So if the machine was
set-up at the same time as production there is a possibility that both
machines have the same DST password for QSECOFR.  Whoever configured it
may have installed a backdoor equivalent to QSECOFR (I know I did on
ours) just in case someone blows away both DST's and OS/400's QSECOFR.


Before V5R3 you could always use the '22222222' user id and '22222222'
password to break into a system.  Did that once with a 150 on V4R?.  No
one ever changes DST passwords.  But it looks like the '22222222'
profile no longer has this capability (by default, anyway) if I'm
reading my system correctly.



       * Jerry C. Adams
*IBM System i Programmer/Analyst
B&W Wholesale Distributors, Inc.* *
voice
       615.995.7024
fax
       615.995.1201
email
       jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



Mark Allen wrote:

>We've got a "spare" 520 that nobody has used/touched in I ahve no idea
how
>long.  I finally got a chance to "try" and sign on so I can see what
shape
>its in so we can start using it as a true development box (last sign on
that
>anyone remembers is me when I "interviewed" for the job.
>
>Tried all the default user ids/PWs and they all show as user disabled,
and
>every id that people here THINK may have been set up is also disabled.
>Tried QSECOFR with "suggested" pw's but now getting the one more bad sign
on
>and qsecofr will be disabled....
>
>This box is NOT under maintenance and I have NO clue as to what it really
>has installed until I can get signed on....any ideas?????
>
>

--
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.