I don't think we or IBM should be close minded to passing job step data in memory. I agree with Peter , we deal with security all the time. I haven't heard of B1, Peter could you share a link? I don't want leave any system open to hacking or whatever the current buzzword is in our vocabulary. But I also see a level of ignorance and over-reaction , because of a perceived .
Scott On Dec 3, 2017, 11:20 AM -0500, J R <[email protected]>, wrote: > "z/OS Unix" as opposed to "Normal MVS" > > I like that clarification! > > > On Dec 3, 2017, at 10:20, Peter Relson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Given that an unauthorized user has access only to unauthorized subpools > > and that all unauthorized subpools are freed between steps, some less > > direct approach would be necessary, involving authorized code putting the > > data into some other kind of storage (be that an authorized subpool, > > common storage, shared storage, etc) and providing some means by which the > > new step could access that. Perhaps z/OS Unix does so. "Normal" MVS would > > likely never do that as it could be considered a violation of B1 security > > (to the extent that anyone still cares about B1 security), at least for > > the case where the subsequent step might be started in a different address > > space, such as in a restart scenario. > > > > Peter Relson > > z/OS Core Technology Design > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
