On Tue, 27 May 2014 10:34:32 -0400, John Gilmore wrote: > >Tastes and judgments differ. I think the non-problem you mention is >created by what, in my view, is the very bad practice of putting a >"non-authorized" routine in an an authorized library. > It allows an authorized program, with proper precautions, to ATTACH an otherwise "non-authorized" routine; allowing SMP/E, for example, necessarily authorized for some of its facilities such as S99WTDSN, to invoke the various utilities it uses while not allowing those routines to execute authorized when invoked by "EXEC PGM=..."
It is suspected by many that the SMP/E integrity crisis discussed here at length four years ago, but never explained by IBM, may have arisen from SMP/E's failure to employ "proper precautions", compounded by allowing the programmer to select nonstandard utility names. "Very bad practice", indeed. And IBM appears to have been unable to repair the flaw, and settled on building a RACF fence around it. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
