Not according to Target or any write ups I’ve read on it.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Tuesday, June 4, 2019, 12:52 PM, Clark Morris <cfmt...@uniserve.com> wrote: [Default] On 4 Jun 2019 08:56:03 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main 00000047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu (Bill Johnson) wrote: >From the you can’t make this up department. Mr. Marchant agrees with me. > >https://www.compuware.com/proving-z13-modern/ > Considering that he is writing for a mainframe systems software vendor that provides APF authorized code, he has some interest in perpetuating the mainframe. Also RACF is a separately priced add-on item> Does IBM require that you license RACF or approved third party equivalent as a condition of running z/OS? Is there a mechanism for third party vendors that provide software that runs APF authorized to be somehow included in the statement of integrity or have recognized equivalents? I suspect that the data that was involved in the famous Target retailer breach was residing on a mainframe and was gotten by using credentials that were stolen from a supplier that had valid access to the data. I think the initial breach was at the supplier that was probably not running a mainframe system. Clark Morris > >Talk of “modernization” of mainframe systems is often code for redesigning >mainframe-based applications and implementing them to run on Windows, or less >frequently, on Unix or Linux. None of these systems can match the security >capabilities of modern mainframe operating systems. > > >Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > >On Tuesday, June 4, 2019, 10:45 AM, Tom Marchant ><0000000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > >On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 00:01:01 +0000, Bill Johnson wrote: > >>noise and plenty of it. > >PKB. > >You have posted more to this thread than anyone else. > >You have claimed that security is the main reason people stay on the >mainframe, and posted a few articles that do not say what you claimed >they say. > >You have insisted several times that your MVS systems have never been >hacked without providing any evidence or serious reasoning as to how >you could know that. "40 years of experience" is not evidence. It's called >appeal to authority, and it is a logical fallacy. > >When your assertions are questioned, your response is to attack those >who question you rather than provide evidence. Another logical fallacy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
