RE: Programing Question/Authority...

["alan shore" <SHOREA@xxxxxxxx>]

TOTALLY agree with your comment —-----
"All revolves around security setups being DESIGNED, and not EVOLVED or done on 
the fly as is too often the case!"




>>> "Mike Collins (syan)" <mike.collins@syan.co.uk> 07/27/01 10:42AM >>>
But if you used correctly, adopted authority can actually reduce your exposure
to security problems. Let us say that a particular application has a function
to clear a file down. This would require access to both the CLRPFM command and
the file in question. Using adopted authority you could prevent this being
allowed from outside the correct program (programmers could be malicious too).
I would totally agree with your comments and stress that if not set up
correctly, that yes you can leave yourself open to the kind of problems you
mention. All revolves around security setups being DESIGNED, and not EVOLVED or
done on the fly as is too often the case!




alan shore <SHOREA@dime.com>@INTERNET@midrange.com> on 27/07/2001 15:27:16
Please respond to RPG400-L <RPG400-L@midrange.com>@INTERNET
Sent by: owner-rpg400-l <owner-rpg400-l@midrange.com>
To: RPG400-L <RPG400-L@midrange.com>@INTERNET
cc:

Subject: RE: Programing Question/Authority...

I have been VERY cautious in taking this approach, as this means that ANYBODY
that can sign onto the system can really play havoc with the system JUST by
using the application.
Fred Blogs has a valid profile/password to sign onto the system, and even with
NO command line can apply payments, withdraw funds, place orders etc. just by
following the menu options, because there is NO security to stop him due to the
application giving him the authority because he is signed on.
Whereas, if authorization per Group profile or user profile was applied to the
files within the production libraries, the security would stop him because he
is NOT authorized to update a particular master file. He is only allowed to
read the master file.
Using adopted owner authority should be used ONLY where needed, NOT across the
gamut of the application.
But then thats just my opinion, for what its worth.

>>> "Njal Fisketjon" <n.f@figu.no> 07/26/01 08:43PM >>>
I am a bit surprised to see all the postings regarding USRPRF(*OWNER)

I always thought this was the recommended way of handling db security:

- use public *Exclude on all libraries
- let each application (all programs and files) be owned by an owner profile
with pwd *none
- use USRPRF(*OWNER) on all application programs

Something important must have slipped by me if this is no longer a
recommended approach.




+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com 
+---

+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com 
+---


+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com 
+---

+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---