Re: Adopted authority

On 26-Jul-2016 11:17 -0500, dlclark wrote:

On 26-Jul-2016 11:02 -0500, CRPence wrote:

For the general topic of _adopting authority_ the two values are
indeed related.

However, for _adopting authority_ of the owner of a
specific-program, with regard only to that specific-program, the
two attributes are unrelated in the following sense: the adoption
[or lack thereof] of the privileges by the owner of that
specific-program will hold true, *irrespective* the setting for the
Use Adopted Authority (USEADPTAUT) on that specific-program.

Sorry, but that doesn't help much because it sounds like you're
saying that USEADPAUT(*YES) is basically ignored for the current
program -- which, of course, is impossible or the setting wouldn't
exist. So, how should the following table be completed?

USRPRF | USEADPAUT | Resulting Authority
-------|-----------|---------------------
*USER | *NO | Current User Profile
*OWNER | *NO | Current Object Owner
*USER | *YES | ??
*OWNER | *YES | ??

Ignored, only from the perspective of "Will the specific-program adopt authority of the owner of the specific-program", for which the value for USEADPAUT is moot.

However the USEADPAUT still maintains meaning in the "general" sense, for what the effect is on adoption being held\maintained from prior invocation levels.

Matrix of USRPRF\USEADPAUT for specific-program:

USRPRF | USEADPAUT | Adopted Authority
-------+-----------+----------------------------
*USER | *NO | *NONE
*OWNER | *NO | (Pgm Owner)
*USER | *YES | (prior Adopted)
*OWNER | *YES | (Pgm Owner) + (prior Adopted)

In the above matrix we see that the (Pgm Owner) holds, *irrespective* the value for USEADPAUT; in that sense, the value of USEADPAUT is /unrelated/ to the USRPRF, as Rob claims. But under the heading of "Adopted Authority", they are indeed /related/ because there exists possibility to pass forward additional capabilities\privileges if USEADPAUT(*YES) is in effect.