Re: [Security400] Authority annoyances, continued...

[Larry Bolhuis <lbolhuis@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dan,

> That's why *I think* I like the USRPRF(*OWNER) approach with programs.
> Sure makes it easy as it concerns authorization.  If I can run the whole
> program without authority issues, then my worries are over by using
> USRPRF(*OWNER).  Rhetorical question: Why not create all applications
> this way?  Go ahead, scare me!

  USRPRF(*OWNER) is the way to go here. The program is guaranteed the
authority it needs and the user either CAN submit (or call) it or they
can't.

  Now why not do this all the time??? Well because unless you review the
program carefully and know and understand EVERY caommand in there it
could open a Mack Truck size secuirty whole in your system.  FOr example
if a program adopting *OWNER owned by QSECOFR called some utility that
had a command line option, the user just became King.  Or a Fkey that
displays spool files, "Saaaaay, paychecks, this could be
interesting..."  Just a couple simple examples!

  - Larry