At 8/20/2006 09:35 AM, BShannon wrote:
>But for authorized programming, the security is about as robust as
moldy >cheese. (And I know I'm right about this!)
Dave - I would argue that there is no implied security for authorized
code.
I would agree. And so would IBM, which is why a security breach by an
authorized program would not be APARable. But that sentence (<--)
right there suggests why there needs to be.
Authorized programs can breach security.
There are too many reasons why authorized programs have to be written.
There are too many people who write authorized programs.
There are too many people (both inside a Corp. and outside[!]) who
have the right to install authorized programs into authorized libraries.
If I were responsible for security, I would be concerned.
Dave Cole REPLY TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cole Software WEB PAGE: http://www.colesoft.com
736 Fox Hollow Road VOICE: 540-456-8536
Afton, VA 22920 FAX: 540-456-6658
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
