Re: Modifying an exit point program

How do you identify the user vs. the devices they should use?

This can be done in the routing program if you have a specific way to identify the relationship between the user and the devices they should use, or compare on line device to printer device.

Jim Oberholtzer
Chief Technical Architect
Agile Technology Architects


On 2/13/2012 9:26 AM, John McKee wrote:

One of the biggest reasons for this device assignment, if not using
DHCP is to allow users to print reports to a known printer. Some
functions initiate printing from a batch job, basically a NEP, and
users don't have the option of specifying a printer. Maybe that is an
application issue, but it is what it is. The application is not
developed in-house.

John McKee

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:16 AM,<rob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> This just sounds like too much work for me. In this day and age of
> laptops I may connect to my system from DHCP address on wire on my desk.
> > From some wireless address in the conference room. From a wireless, or
> wired, address from our corporate office. Or from our VPN access. There's
> no way I'd constantly change my device names on my 5250 sessions to always
> match where I am connecting from. Can you imagine trying to explain that
> logic to some mobile bean counter in accounting?
>
> I wrote our FTP exit point. I used to say that they had to come from a
> particular address (or range). However a vast majority of our trading
> partners could do tricks like IPCONFIG at their DOS prompt (after the 3rd
> day of explanation) but rarely could tell me their NATted address. And
> then I had this 'major customer' whose ftp person was a mobile user,
> including doing work in between her night classes at college.
> Much of this is now handled by our network consultant. And when I told
> him I wanted it opened to the world and we would handle it by user id's
> and passwords he wanted it in writing. Basically we had the same problems
> with the same users. Granted, we may block a range of addresses used by
> certain foreign entities for nefarious purposes. But that I would do at
> the network level. Oh, I'll grant you that there's some argument to be
> made for defense in depth.
>
> Your SA was not a nut. At one time it was a generally accepted practice
> to do such stuff. The IBM i still has a system value to limit which
> terminals QSECOFR can sign on to. The theory being you could limit them
> to the system console. Which would be in a secured room where you could
> keep an eye on what they were doing.
>
> Rob Berendt
> --
> Group Dekko
> Dept 1600
> Mail to: 2505 Dekko Drive
> Garrett, IN 46738
> Ship to: Dock 108
> 6928N 400E
> Kendallville, IN 46755
> http://www.dekko.com
>
>
>
>
>
> From: John McKee<jmmckee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion<midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Date: 02/12/2012 08:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Modifying an exit point program
> Sent by:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> This is related to my original question. The sa coded the exit point
> program to examine the first three characters of the device. If they
> were not equal to 'VPN', then the IP address is used to look up a
> device name in a file. No device name means no signon screen is
> allowed. If the first three characters were equal to 'VPN' then the
> device name is check for existance and that the status is VARY ON
> PENDING. If those conditions are met, then signon is allowed.
>
> I tried to find out the origin of this logic. Nobody knows. The only
> thing I learned is that there was speculation that this was for system
> security. The system is not directly connected to the internet. From
> outside, somebody would have to have a login to the corporate office,
> then would have to have access to my facility, and then would have to
> have access to the i itself. Finally, they would need to supply a
> valid, existing device name.
>
> Does the logic that requires a device name starting with "VPN" offer
> any additional security? To me, any additional security that might be
> offered is minima, at best.
>
> What I am left with is to either add multiple additional tests to the
> login exit point program - no idea how many, or remove that validation
> piece. Which was why I asked earlier about adding more tests and if
> "and" worked in free format. Just seems to be making the logic more
> complicated than necessary.
>
> This mess was brought to a head due to the network guys wanting to use
> DHCP for internal new devices. The external devices come throught the
> corporate firewall and get NAT addresses that we are not informed
> about.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> John McKee
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Monnier, Gary<Gary.Monnier@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:

>> John,
>>
>> Not equal is<>
>>
>> The System does not have to be in a restricted state for the telnet exit

> point. The exit program is only called when a telnet session first
> starts.

>>
>> You can "move" the recreated program into the target library. All the

> normal cautions apply - ownership, authorizations, adopt authority, etc.

>> It is much easier to have the object you are going to move match the

> target object before you "install" it.

>>
>> The only difficulty you may encounter is if someone is starting a telnet

> session when you "install" your change.

>>
>> Gary Monnier
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [

> mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John McKee

>> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 11:12 AM
>> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
>> Subject: Modifying an exit point program
>>
>> An exit point program is installed on QIBM_QTG_DEVINIT
>>
>> It contains a single line that needs to be changed. It is free format.

> Existing line is testing for first three characters equal to "VPN"

>>
>> Questions:
>>
>> 1) What is the not equal operator in free format RPG? Is it != or<>,

> or something else?

>> 2) I recall the discussion on a mediator program. I can't recall if it

> was only needed for a data file change, or for any program change.

>> Does system have to be in restricted state to make this change?
>> 3) Does recompile of the program into the target library accomplish all

> changes, or does the exit point have to be dropped an readded?

>>
>> I ask, since I may be "asked" to make the changes. The person who

> functioned as sa, does not necessarily do this anymore.

>>
>> John McKee
>> --