Sent from my iPhone Sorry for any grammar problems
> On Aug 24, 2017, at 16:54, Walt Farrell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
