Bad link
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2487425/target-breach-happened-because-of-a-basic-network-segmentation-error.html
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019, 12:53:11 PM EDT, Clark Morris
<[email protected]> wrote:
[Default] On 4 Jun 2019 08:56:03 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
[email protected] (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
><[email protected]> 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 [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
