> QUESTION: Do they really mean to imply the _user profile_ > in effect at the > time the command is being executed, and not the signed-on > _user_? > They mean the user profile _in_effect_. That means if you are using program profile adoption, then it is the combined authorities of the Signed on User and the Owner(s) of the adopting program(s) being executed. If you are using swapped profile, it is simply the authority of the "Current" user. jte -- John Earl | Chief Technology Officer The PowerTech Group 19426 68th Ave. S Seattle, WA 98032 (253) 872-7788 ext. 302 john.earl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx www.powertech.com This email message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipients and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email message in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email message, or by telephone, and delete the message from your email system. -- > -----Original Message----- > From: security400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:security400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan > Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 8:23 AM > To: Security400@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [Security400] Program object's USRPRF(*USER vs. > *OWNER) effect onauthorities required to run certain > things. > > I think I know the answer to this, but because it is > really tough for > programmers to test authority issues in this environment, > I would like to > get a sanity check before putting my mods into production. > > Had a problem this morning with a new program I put in > production where a > user got an authority error where the program tried to run > an ADDPFM on a > data file. The program actually did a CHKOBJ AUT(*CHANGE) > on the file (and > passed that check), but I found out the hard way that > ADDPFM requires > *OBJOPR, *OBJMGT, or *OBJALTER authority, and *CHANGE > doesn't include those. > > Anyway, the temporary quick fix was to change the file's > *PUBLIC authority > to *ALL. But I want to revert it back to *CHANGE, which is > the standard here > for production files, and change the program to > USRPRF(*OWNER), which would > then, supposedly, have the necessary authority to execute > the ADDPFM. The > *OWNER of the program object in question also owns the > file. > > The documentation for command ADDPFM doesn't mention > anything about > authority requirements, so I go to the CLRPFM doc and see > that it refers to > _user_ required to have the *OBJOPR, *OBJMGT, or *OBJALTER > authority. (See > RANT below.) > > QUESTION: Do they really mean to imply the _user profile_ > in effect at the > time the command is being executed, and not the signed-on > _user_? > > TIA, Dan > > <RANT /ON> On V5R2, the documentation seems to be > extremely inconsistent > regarding including the authorities required by commands. > The online help > for CHGPFM has it, but CLRPFM and ADDPFM do not. The > InfoCenter docs for > CHGPFM and CLRPFM has it, but not for ADDPFM. Had to go to > "Appendix D. > Authority Required for Objects Used by Commands" in the > Security Reference. > <RANT /OFF> > _______________________________________________ > This is the Security Administration on the AS400 / iSeries > (Security400) mailing list > To post a message email: Security400@xxxxxxxxxxxx > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, > visit: > http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/security400 > or email: Security400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Before posting, please take a moment to review the > archives > at http://archive.midrange.com/security400. >
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.