Classification: Confidential

As I said yesterday, and auditor that can spell S-M-P-E is a rarity.

-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of 
Joel Ewing
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 6:17 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: SMPE and auditors

[CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization. Unless you trust the 
sender, Don’t click links or open attachments as it may be a Phishing email, 
which can steal your Information and compromise your Computer.]

I'm betting the auditor's level of understanding is pretty low here -- probably 
just a concept that putting code with a known error into
production is always bad.   The reality of course is that if you have
been doing z/OS maintenance long enough, you know every  system placed into 
production has unknown errors, some of which could end up being serious.  Over 
time, as more errors are discovered and communicated to IBM resulting in APARS 
and HOLDs, you end up with a production system with both known and unknown 
errors.  IBM issues PTFs to fix known errors, and if those PTFs are later found 
to have errors, a later ERROR
hold is put on the PTF.   The only difference between APPLY and APPLY
BYPASS for that PTF is a matter of timing:   when you do the APPLY
versus when the ERROR  hold on the PTF is issued.  The odds are that every time 
you do major maintenance, you will invariably have applied some PTFs that at a 
later time will be found to contain errors.

Normally you wouldn't want to place a PTF that has an ERROR hold into a 
production system, but on rare occasions you encounter a HELD PTF that fixes a 
problem that is very serious for your installation, while the ERROR hold is a 
minor issue or even no problem for your installation because of your 
configuration.  If no resolving PTF is available, in such a case it may be 
desirable to BYPASS the ERROR hold to replace a
critical problem with a minor  one.   This is a judgement call based on
detailed knowledge of your specific system environment, and frankly not
something a generic auditor is qualified to judge or question.   When
applying quarterly maintenance, you can try to maximize the number of PTFs 
installed and still avoid needing BYPASS by obtaining any later 
Error-hold-resolving PTFs that are available, but these newer resolving PTFs 
have had less usage and could themselves contain errors that just haven't been 
found yet.

To me, the fixation of the Auditors on APPLY BYPASS indicates lack of
understanding.   It would make more sense to look for evidence about how
often HOLD data was received and a REPORT ERRSYSMODS performed to check whether 
there are any known problems in production that are urgent
enough to resolve before the next maintenance cycle.   With z/OS, no
reasonable SysProg puts major maintenance directly into a production system, 
but builds a "new" system whcih only becomes production after
sufficient testing and resolution of problems.   It is irrelevant
whether building that new system included any APPLY BYPASS operations, only 
whether there are significant ERRSYSMODS remaining after the
testing and problem resolution.   If the timing of other events (like
new hardware) forces putting a system with known unresolved ERRSYSMODS into 
production, one would hope there is enough review of the nature of those known 
errors to give some assurance the risk is minimal.

     JC Ewing

On 12/10/24 11:20 AM, Phil Smith III wrote:
> Can we first stop and be impressed that an auditor understands enough to ask 
> about this?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On
> Behalf Of ITschak Mugzach
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 12:16 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: SMPE and auditors
>
> Let your auditor access to the smp log files and find the answer himself.
>
> ITschak
>
> *| **Itschak Mugzach | Director | SecuriTeam Software **|** IronSphere
> Platform* *|* *Information Security Continuous Monitoring for Z/OS,
> zLinux and IBM I **|  *
>
> *|* *Email**: [email protected] **|* *Mob**: +972 522 986404
> **|*
> *Skype**: ItschakMugzach **|* *Web**:
> http://www.s/
> ecuriteam.co.il%2F&data=05%7C02%7Callan.staller%40HCLTECH.COM%7Cafef18
> 32bba44c71108208dd197931b6%7C189de737c93a4f5a8b686f4ca9941912%7C0%7C0%
> 7C638694730522176771%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsI
> lYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C
> 0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=q0ZqA7jLpj8ilNvCwWG29f8YbwDQec6uJQ0Qrq7iS30%3D&reserv
> ed=0  **|*
>
>
>
>
>
> בתאריך יום ג׳, 10 בדצמ׳ 2024 ב-19:12 מאת Jousma, David <
> [email protected]>:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I have an auditor that would like to see if there were any PTF’s applied
>> in my environment where BYPASS HOLDERROR was specified.   Its not enough
>> for me to tell them that there weren’t any.   I have been playing around
>> with SMPE list commands, and can list PTF’s where BYPASS was specified, but
>> no further granularity that I can see.    And I guess it’s a bit more
>> complicated than that, as rare as it is to bypass HOLDERROR, I could
>> forsee one being applied after talking with support center, and then
>> later, the fixing PTF came along and was applied.
>>
>> Any ideas that I am missing?
>>
>> Dave Jousma
>> Vice President | Director, Technology Engineering
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This e-mail transmission contains information that is confidential and may
>> be privileged.   It is intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If
>> you receive this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy or
>> disseminate it in any manner. If you are not the intended recipient,
>> any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
>> information is prohibited. Please reply to the message immediately by
>> informing the sender that the message was misdirected. After
>> replying, please erase it from your computer system. Your assistance in 
>> correcting this error is appreciated.
>>
>>
Joel C Ewing

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
[email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
::DISCLAIMER::
________________________________
The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended 
for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. 
The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore 
not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or 
opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the author and 
may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any 
form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, 
distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written 
consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender 
immediately. Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for 
viruses and other defects.
________________________________

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to