This is the way (one of few) to do this.
In other words HOW to do this.
However it doesn't answer WHY to do this.
I still don't know any *reasonable* justification for UACC(NONE) for
linklisted libraries.
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
W dniu 23.06.2024 o 18:27, Mike Schwab pisze:
We did UACC(WARN) and monitored to make sure somebody put RACF on it.
We eventually went to NONE.
On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 7:16 AM Radoslaw Skorupka
<[email protected]> wrote:
W dniu 23.06.2024 o 10:51, Mike Cairns pisze:
No Bob - I meant UACC(READ) or its equivalent. I just don't see what gate is
being closed by insisting that LinkList or LPA libraries must have UACC(NONE),
when, as you confirm, they cannot be fetch protected and therefore the content
is available to anyone on the system anyway.
I met the following justification: when you have UACC(NONE) for
linklisted library then you enforce use LNKLST instead of STEPLIB/JOBLIB.
While I understand the above, I don't agree with the goal as being worth
such configuration.
And there is another approach: UACC above NONE should not be used at
all. Just because mama (auditor) said so.
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
