On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:06:26 -0500, Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 15:22:30 -0500, Walt Farrell wrote: > >>On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 11:30:26 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >> >>>Is AMASPZAP linked AC=1? It would seem that there's no need for that >>>nowadays: >>>AC=0 with suitable data set and programmer profiles should suffice. >> >>Even if what you need to zap is a VTOC? When I retired from IBM that still >>required AC=1, _and_ appropriate RACF authority. >> >But I thought you have regularly argued for protecting the resources >rather than restricting the tools. I do argue that, and in my opinion you should not restrict access to AMASPZAP. That does not mean, however, that it can run unauthorized. Most of its functions do not require authorization, but at least one does. I was simply questioning your statement that it shouldn't need AC=1. Even properly protected by RACF, some system functions require authorization :) -- Walt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
