Jousma, David wrote: >I understand the concept, but sounds impossible.
So, I already see that. Beside, trying to protect the programs of utilities are simply a no-no. >What about omitting the records you don’t want? Omitting all user=ELARDUS >would be just as bad as changing data if there were intentional efforts going >on. Of course. I was more generally thinking about any manipulating of data to/from something. Same with DBAs. You have to trust them and their data and databases. >Auditors either have to bring their own toolbox, or trust at some point. SMF >going to logger is harder to thwart it would seem, but the real question to me >would be a method to bulletproof the collection of the data so that it cannot >be altered before written. This is what I try to tell our people. Protect the source and custodians (people), not the tools. So, this is why I'm asking to see what others think - is it practical to protect DFSORT keywords or not. >DFSORT is just one tool. What about SAS/MXG? No SAS here. Or any tool which can modify data in place or during transfers. Thanks for your kind insight. Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
