Re: Looking for any doc on dasd ccw command: 47 Define Subsystem Operation
On 8/8/2020 5:18 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: Anybody have any doc, even rough, self-made partial notes on the dasd ccw command: x'F7' - Define Subsystem Operation The subject line says 47, the body says F7. Which is it? Locate Record normally follows Define Extent which has subsystem operation parameters. Any chance that is what you're think of? -- Phoenix Software International Edward E. Jaffe 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 https://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ This e-mail message, including any attachments, appended messages and the information contained therein, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient or have otherwise received this email message in error, any use, dissemination, distribution, review, storage or copying of this e-mail message and the information contained therein is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of this email message and do not otherwise utilize or retain this email message or any or all of the information contained therein. Although this email message and any attachments or appended messages are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising in any way from its opening or use.
Re: Looking for any doc on dasd ccw command: 47 Define Subsystem Operation
What device? You might want to ask on IBM-MAIN if you haven't already. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf of Tony Thigpen Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 8:18 AM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Looking for any doc on dasd ccw command: 47 Define Subsystem Operation Anybody have any doc, even rough, self-made partial notes on the dasd ccw command: x'F7' - Define Subsystem Operation thanks, Tony Thigpen
Re: Scholarly Articles Evaluation Report Was Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360/37 0 ARCHITECTURE (1987)
Hi, Paul -- This is now called the National Security Agency / Central Security Service. According to this web page https://www.nsa.gov/business/contacts/, you might try contacting the NSA/CSS Commercial Solutions Center at +1.240.373.4163 (i...@nsa.gov) and see if they know of such a report on z/OS. Thanks, Gary -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List On Behalf Of esst...@juno.com Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2020 9:59 AM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Scholarly Articles Evaluation Report Was Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360/37 0 ARCHITECTURE (1987) Hello..I stumbled into a Scholarly Articles Web Page containing two IBM Evaluation Reports one for MVS/XA and another for MVS/ESA https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=IBM+Region-Control-task=en_sdt=0; as_vis=1=scholart National Computer Security Center Final Evaluation Report International Business Machines MVS/XA with RACF 1.8 apps.dtic.mil Final Evaluation Report International Business Machines MVS/ESA Operating System dtic.mil . . Is anyone familiar with these reports and know where I can find the equivalent evaluation for os/390 and most importantly z/OS ? . . Paul D'Angelo .
Scholarly Articles Evaluation Report Was Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360/37 0 ARCHITECTURE (1987)
Hello..I stumbled into a Scholarly Articles Web Page containing two IBM Evaluation Reports one for MVS/XA and another for MVS/ESA https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=IBM+Region-Control-task=en_sdt=0_vis=1=scholart National Computer Security Center Final Evaluation Report International Business Machines MVS/XA with RACF 1.8 apps.dtic.mil Final Evaluation Report International Business Machines MVS/ESA Operating System dtic.mil . . Is anyone familiar with these reports and know where I can find the equivalent evaluation for os/390 and most importantly z/OS ? . . Paul D'Angelo .
Re: Looking for any doc on dasd ccw command: 47 Define Subsystem Operation
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSB27H_6.2.0/fa2mu_appc_hints_programming.html On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 8:18 AM Tony Thigpen wrote: > Anybody have any doc, even rough, self-made partial notes on the dasd > ccw command: > > x'F7' - Define Subsystem Operation > > thanks, > > Tony Thigpen > -- Politics: Poli (many) - tics (blood sucking parasites)
Re: Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360-370 ARCHITECTURE (1987)
On 2020-08-10 02:13, Seymour J Metz wrote: I'm fully conversant with UNPK, Obviously you are not, or you would not have said that the ASCII bit "only affects the handling of the sign nybble". including the fact that the zone it sets depends on the value of the ASCII bit. How is that relevant to handling teletypes? Um, if an UNPK'd number is sent to an ASCII TTY then it must have the proper ASCII zone. (Other characters sent to an ASCII TTY would need to be in ASCII also.) Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf of robi...@dodo.com.au Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2020 10:53 AM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360-370 ARCHITECTURE (1987) On 2020-08-09 15:05, Seymour J Metz wrote: How is the ASCII bit relevant to teletypes? It only affects the handling of the sign nybble. You might want to check out the UNPK instruction. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf of Robin Vowels Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 11:40 PM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360-370 ARCHITECTURE (1987) - Original Message - From: "Steve Smith" To: Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2020 10:57 AM Subject: Re: Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360-370 ARCHITECTURE (1987) The ASCII feature of S/360 probably wasn't used because it's nearly useless. What? See my earlier report that no IBM operating system could turn on the ASCII bit. The ASCII feature would have been useful in talking to ASCII teletypes. Turning on ASCII mode caused PACK & CVD to generate ASCII sign codes and UNPK to generate ASCII zone codes. As far as I can tell, that's it. I'd say that the much later PKA & UNPKA instructions make a lot more sense than a system option, so I suppose somebody thinks the function is useful. But you could always convert zoned decimal with NC/OC or, of course TR. ED isn't in my very old S/360 PoOp (A22-6821-0), no? Look at page 57. ED, EDMK, TR, TRT, etc etc are all in this manual. See Bitsavers. but ED certainly came out soon, long before the ASCII bit was officially dropped. Anyway, I don't know whether it supported ASCII mode or not. It did. Both EBCDIC and ASCII. But, as I reported earlier, no IBM operating system permitted the ASCII bit to be set.
Re: Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360-370 ARCHITECTURE (1987)
I'm fully conversant with UNPK, including the fact that the zone it sets depends on the value of the ASCII bit. How is that relevant to handling teletypes? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf of robi...@dodo.com.au Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2020 10:53 AM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360-370 ARCHITECTURE (1987) On 2020-08-09 15:05, Seymour J Metz wrote: > How is the ASCII bit relevant to teletypes? It only affects the > handling of the sign nybble. You might want to check out the UNPK instruction. > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List > on behalf of Robin Vowels > Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 11:40 PM > To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Subject: Re: Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360-370 ARCHITECTURE (1987) > > - Original Message - > From: "Steve Smith" > To: > Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2020 10:57 AM > Subject: Re: Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360-370 ARCHITECTURE (1987) > > >> The ASCII feature of S/360 probably wasn't used because it's nearly >> useless. > > What? See my earlier report that no IBM operating system could > turn on the ASCII bit. > > The ASCII feature would have been useful in talking to ASCII teletypes. > >> Turning on ASCII mode caused PACK & CVD to generate ASCII sign >> codes and UNPK to generate ASCII zone codes. As far as I can tell, >> that's >> it. I'd say that the much later PKA & UNPKA instructions make a lot >> more >> sense than a system option, so I suppose somebody thinks the function >> is >> useful. But you could always convert zoned decimal with NC/OC or, of >> course TR. >> >> ED isn't in my very old S/360 PoOp (A22-6821-0), > > no? Look at page 57. > > ED, EDMK, TR, TRT, etc etc are all in this manual. See Bitsavers. > >> but ED certainly came out >> soon, long before the ASCII bit was officially dropped. Anyway, I >> don't >> know whether it supported ASCII mode or not. > > It did. Both EBCDIC and ASCII. > > But, as I reported earlier, no IBM operating system permitted the > ASCII bit to be set.
Re: Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360-370 ARCHITECTURE (1987)
On 2020-08-09 15:05, Seymour J Metz wrote: How is the ASCII bit relevant to teletypes? It only affects the handling of the sign nybble. You might want to check out the UNPK instruction. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf of Robin Vowels Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 11:40 PM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360-370 ARCHITECTURE (1987) - Original Message - From: "Steve Smith" To: Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2020 10:57 AM Subject: Re: Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360-370 ARCHITECTURE (1987) The ASCII feature of S/360 probably wasn't used because it's nearly useless. What? See my earlier report that no IBM operating system could turn on the ASCII bit. The ASCII feature would have been useful in talking to ASCII teletypes. Turning on ASCII mode caused PACK & CVD to generate ASCII sign codes and UNPK to generate ASCII zone codes. As far as I can tell, that's it. I'd say that the much later PKA & UNPKA instructions make a lot more sense than a system option, so I suppose somebody thinks the function is useful. But you could always convert zoned decimal with NC/OC or, of course TR. ED isn't in my very old S/360 PoOp (A22-6821-0), no? Look at page 57. ED, EDMK, TR, TRT, etc etc are all in this manual. See Bitsavers. but ED certainly came out soon, long before the ASCII bit was officially dropped. Anyway, I don't know whether it supported ASCII mode or not. It did. Both EBCDIC and ASCII. But, as I reported earlier, no IBM operating system permitted the ASCII bit to be set.
Re: Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360-370 ARCHITECTURE (1987)
Are you talking about 5740-XT2 (V1) or 5740-XT8 (V2)? Was it part of a standard install or optional? Did the documentation warn that installing the SVC would breach integrity? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf of Leland Bond <0d7433ac18a9-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu> Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2020 2:52 AM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360-370 ARCHITECTURE (1987) The source for the ISPF/PDF SVC allowing it to run IEBCOPY was published by IBM and used in many (most?) shops. It was trivial to circumvent the checks that supposedly ensured it was being used for its intended purpose. The best that could be said about the checks was that they made it difficult to accidentally invoke the SVC. Even if that SVC wasn’t installed, it was easy to write a scanner to find similar backdoor SVCs and PCs installed by extremely popular ISV software or written by supposedly-knowledgeable systems programmers. Such backdoors with minimal to no validation were installed on all systems I saw well into the 1990’s, which was when I stopped looking. One of the best uses of such a backdoor was to turn on the bit in the ACEE that gave your TSO session RACF special or operations authority until the session was logged off or the bit was turned off using the same technique. It came in handy at one place I worked where I often had to submit a form and wait up to a week to do something required by my job - all because management felt “Process" was far more important than results. Those of you who know my dislike of the “P” word will know the company. This should also a lesson for those who write security products: Don’t base all protection on a single bit in user-addressable memory. David Bond > On 9 Aug 2020, at 07:26, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > No. I remember shops that had one or more such SVCs, but they weren't part of > the MVS code base. > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on > behalf of Robert Netzlof > Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 1:20 PM > To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Subject: Re: Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360-370 ARCHITECTURE (1987) > > But do remember that in Ye Gude Auld Days, there was a widely known > "magic" SVC which granted authorization to the user. > > On 8/8/20, Doug Wegscheid wrote: >> Site-specific SVC to do so? >> >>On Saturday, August 8, 2020, 12:11:14 PM EDT, >> wrote: >> >> Interesting are the two paragraphs on page 302, bottom RHS. >> >> Case says that nobody used the ASCII capability of the S/360. >> >> Padegs says that "none of our operating systems were [sic] programmed >> to turn in the [ASCII] bit". >> >> So, no-one was able to use the ASCII facility. >> >> On 2020-08-08 12:19, Jim Mulder wrote: >>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1aUqvwFSpDRbVn1aNs20guYdvXOPJuuZo5gtacL9Gf9EkZxszA21zIT61i9R8WB_j6gx90NmLvIxo3RSZADv4WZ3_gAGC2hsKqPLrZVSMAnqd1ULXDJ_N1Q0jTv6Py9O8j81_ZaN9_2QMJidYBlRdBbVmWK5O8Ok5dZvJE5VcdhWpmPgsG4lqNkpIOeeau3Hj_Mz29Pj3HE1LN_9KhlrMZlmK2tJGa8Bdh6ca81ZFRgj0foFG9Z5oBRb45u3ITmHFU4F9AbzKRB5tZWb294HsZdywlGOGfo70KzhWg_JKhm7kFz1_2z8NdtTe_kHlsEBKgmbTqz059j1ekDC0Mf-UZ-o2FEaXuQN7gmYaMBSZymqfxf0dAjCFAJVJlxDllnLswiB3PZCp11aX82cgk2xB5NYqTQwKnwiw_pzVyi9po6OCPHbc5BlgAaKecpPV0izK/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.tufts.edu%2Fcomp%2F150FP%2Farchive%2Falfred-spector%2Fspector87ibm.pdf >>> >>> >>> Jim Mulder z/OS Diagnosis, Design, Development, Test IBM Corp. >>> Poughkeepsie NY >> >> > > > -- > Bob Netzlof a/k/a Sweet Old Bob >
Re: Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360-370 ARCHITECTURE (1987)
My discussion was about the architecture. The fact that it wasn't supported by the OSes of the day may be true, but that doesn't mean it was "prevented", or *couldn't* be used. If customers thought it was useful, they could have asked IBM to support it, or implemented it themselves. The salient fact, according to the article, is that no one ever did. I'm aware that -0 means first edition in IBM manual numbering, but they occasionally change the manual number and start over. Anyway, it appeared to be the oldest one on bitsavers, which is where I got it. sas
Re: Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360-370 ARCHITECTURE (1987)
The source for the ISPF/PDF SVC allowing it to run IEBCOPY was published by IBM and used in many (most?) shops. It was trivial to circumvent the checks that supposedly ensured it was being used for its intended purpose. The best that could be said about the checks was that they made it difficult to accidentally invoke the SVC. Even if that SVC wasn’t installed, it was easy to write a scanner to find similar backdoor SVCs and PCs installed by extremely popular ISV software or written by supposedly-knowledgeable systems programmers. Such backdoors with minimal to no validation were installed on all systems I saw well into the 1990’s, which was when I stopped looking. One of the best uses of such a backdoor was to turn on the bit in the ACEE that gave your TSO session RACF special or operations authority until the session was logged off or the bit was turned off using the same technique. It came in handy at one place I worked where I often had to submit a form and wait up to a week to do something required by my job - all because management felt “Process" was far more important than results. Those of you who know my dislike of the “P” word will know the company. This should also a lesson for those who write security products: Don’t base all protection on a single bit in user-addressable memory. David Bond > On 9 Aug 2020, at 07:26, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > No. I remember shops that had one or more such SVCs, but they weren't part of > the MVS code base. > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on > behalf of Robert Netzlof > Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 1:20 PM > To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Subject: Re: Case Study: IBM SYSTEM/360-370 ARCHITECTURE (1987) > > But do remember that in Ye Gude Auld Days, there was a widely known > "magic" SVC which granted authorization to the user. > > On 8/8/20, Doug Wegscheid wrote: >> Site-specific SVC to do so? >> >>On Saturday, August 8, 2020, 12:11:14 PM EDT, >> wrote: >> >> Interesting are the two paragraphs on page 302, bottom RHS. >> >> Case says that nobody used the ASCII capability of the S/360. >> >> Padegs says that "none of our operating systems were [sic] programmed >> to turn in the [ASCII] bit". >> >> So, no-one was able to use the ASCII facility. >> >> On 2020-08-08 12:19, Jim Mulder wrote: >>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1aUqvwFSpDRbVn1aNs20guYdvXOPJuuZo5gtacL9Gf9EkZxszA21zIT61i9R8WB_j6gx90NmLvIxo3RSZADv4WZ3_gAGC2hsKqPLrZVSMAnqd1ULXDJ_N1Q0jTv6Py9O8j81_ZaN9_2QMJidYBlRdBbVmWK5O8Ok5dZvJE5VcdhWpmPgsG4lqNkpIOeeau3Hj_Mz29Pj3HE1LN_9KhlrMZlmK2tJGa8Bdh6ca81ZFRgj0foFG9Z5oBRb45u3ITmHFU4F9AbzKRB5tZWb294HsZdywlGOGfo70KzhWg_JKhm7kFz1_2z8NdtTe_kHlsEBKgmbTqz059j1ekDC0Mf-UZ-o2FEaXuQN7gmYaMBSZymqfxf0dAjCFAJVJlxDllnLswiB3PZCp11aX82cgk2xB5NYqTQwKnwiw_pzVyi9po6OCPHbc5BlgAaKecpPV0izK/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.tufts.edu%2Fcomp%2F150FP%2Farchive%2Falfred-spector%2Fspector87ibm.pdf >>> >>> >>> Jim Mulder z/OS Diagnosis, Design, Development, Test IBM Corp. >>> Poughkeepsie NY >> >> > > > -- > Bob Netzlof a/k/a Sweet Old Bob >
