On Tue, 21 May 2013 01:03:33 -0400, Scott Ford wrote: > >First of all, been around a block a few thousand times..it's irresponsible >from the standpoint of publishing how to do it. I wouldn't do this or even >consider doing it ...but that's me > WTF!? If there were a real threat it would be discussed by now in responsible channels such as US-CERT or DoHS or IBM integrity APARs. Has there been any such notification? (Of course, IBM wouldn't discuss it -- you'd have to open an SR and be told, "Known issue; please don't tell any one else.")
Walt Farrell has said here in this thread that the technique doesn't enable a programmer to do anything he couldn't do directly in the batch job. I trust his expertise; nor do I believe he's throwing up a smoke screen (though I suspect him of doing so on a different topic three years ago). An analogous situation: Two weeks ago it was discussed here that when system administrators rely on the IKJEFF10 exit to enforce rules about batch jobs, it's ineffective; IKJEFF10 is not entered for jobs submitted via SYSOUT=(,INTRDR) and perhaps other channels. I consider this a due caution to system administrators that they should not be depending on a flawed technique. Do you, in contrast, deem it "irresponsible from the standpoint of publishing how to do it"? And, e.g., even IBM's very open discussion of APAR OA30897 (GIYF) contains enough information that it it is implicitly "publishing how to do it". I consider IBM's action in this matter highly responsible. >Scott ford >www.identityforge.com > Please don't forge my identity. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
