Additionally, depending on the current authority of the console in question have you taken a look at the other possibilities of the AUTH parameter within the CONSOLE statement?
Regards, Kevin -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pommier, Rex R. Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:54 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Securing consoles Hi Tim. Good questions/comments. I would actually want them logging on to do their work. The area management is planning on moving the consoles to is (as far as I'm concerned) an unsecured area. People come into and out of this area on a regular basis with nobody seeing them. The idea mgmt has is that the operator will always be there so it will be secure, but we have 1 operator per shift and the printers and tape drives (not robotic) are located in the computer room so the operator will often be away from the console. As far as the operator issuing meaningless commands once in a while, that's OK because that means they're at the console. My biggest concern is when they're away from them that somebody could come in and cause considerable damage while they're unattended. That's why I am asking about the auto-logoff. I am OK with them even using a single ID for everybody. Rex ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
