Again with the motivated reasoning. Give me any fact that it's unrelated. Give me any fact that I'm wrong. Of course it's based on dynamic allocation. In a permanent allocation situation (like JCL, CICS or possibly IMS), you are defining datasets that can be used at that time. From a security standpoint, that's exactly what they want. Are you saying Unix is not dynamic allocation all the time?Are you saying this virus is possible in a permanent allocation situation?Are you saying the virus was restricted to reading / writing the same files referenced by the programs it infected?Are you saying the virus did not read the path and start scanning the the directories in the path?Are you saying that security checks and balances are irrelevant?Are you saying this same virus is impossible in MVS? How is the Target incident unrelated? In the past, I would get calls from customers ensuring we avoided this situation. Jon.
On Friday, December 22, 2017 1:54 PM, Charles Mills <[email protected]> wrote: The Target breach was based on DYNALLOC? This discussion has jumped the shark. -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jon Perryman Charles broke the cardinal rule in security ( never say never ). Viruses rely on dynalloc.
