Early versions of SDSF provided an SVC that would make the user authorized. It was 'supported' in that it was part of an official IBM program product. There was a general discomfort with this strategy even though the SVC code tried very hard to validate the environment. Eventually (I believe) the SVC was discarded as being too difficult to make airtight.
. . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW robin...@sce.com -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 8:09 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: ATTACH with RSAPF=YES Tom answered most of your question but in addition > Can it get authorised? I don't think there is any supported way for a program that is already running to "get authorized." I hope you are getting the idea how risky this entire approach is. You are playing "you bet your mainframe." You might get it right today but what happens five years from now (that's not very long. Remember 2012?) when you have moved to other responsibilities, there is a new RACF administrator who does not understand all the ramifications of your process, etc., etc.? Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Robin Atwood Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:56 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ATTACH with RSAPF=YES What is the situation of a module that is loaded from an authorised library but was linked with AC=0? Is it authorised? Can it get authorised? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
