>May I assume (should it be obvious?) that the design is such that >system resources can be sufficiently RACF-protected that a user >lacking authority to update those resources can not threaten system >integrity or security by failing to "follow proper protocols", but >only the integrity of that user's own resources and jobs?
Sure. But of course "can be" is important. It is up to you (the customer) to set up the definitions properly. The system does only as good a job of protecting things as you have told it to do. If you have not properly protected important system data sets (such as, but not limited to, those in the LNKLST or LPALST or APF list), your system cannot be said to have any integrity at all. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
