Re: Any reason NOT to add *NETSECURE to the QAUDLVL* system values?

It’s that many more entries in the journal, but I don’t see a reason not to. If you are able to pair up the failures, to a successive successful connection, it might show a brute force attack, or someone over time trying to guess connection information. At the very least it’ll show users that are having difficulty connecting.

Do the auditors require it? The down side is if they don’t, then you’re just giving them more ammunition to shoot at you. I can hear the audit questions being formed now.

Jim Oberholtzer
Agile Technology Architects

On Mar 18, 2022, at 12:11 PM, Rob Berendt <rob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I am looking at the following and I'm trying to determine if there is any reason not to add *NETSECURE to the QAUDLVL* system values
https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/i/7.4?topic=system-audit-journal


Rob Berendt
--
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1
Group Dekko
Dept 1600
Mail to: 7310 Innovation Blvd, Suite 104
Ft. Wayne, IN 46818
Ship to: 7310 Innovation Blvd, Dock 9C
Ft. Wayne, IN 46818
http://www.dekko.com

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related questions.

Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate link: https://amazon.midrange.com