-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Ed Gould
On Feb 17, 2006, at 9:55 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote:
SNIP-
I haven't seen anyone mention only allowing RACF EXECUTE
permission to the COBOL compiler loadlib and
On Feb 20, 2006, at 7:16 AM, Chase, John wrote:
-
SNIP--
So?? LE is no longer a program product; it's an integral part of
z/OS.
Besides, LE doesn't compile anything.
I wasn't just talking about compiling I was talking
Someone (sorry for got his name) said that with the new releases of
the cobol compiler modules are no longer statically linked.
That was me.
I would
guess though unless the binder execution specifies NCAL that syslib
is still opened and there for read access has to be given.
LE/370 is
Try and get that out of user procs its pretty close to impossible.
Like I said 100's of procs (or more) *BEFORE* the change for the
binder (and linkage editor) almost always included it.
LE is a different beast.
Enterprise/COBOL is a different beast.
If you used your old procs against it they
That may work for the compiler (will have to double check) but it
still has issues with coblib (ie LE runtime Subroutines). You
*HAVE to give out read to that library for the binder.
Not any more, unless you're using an unsupported version of COBOL.
The latest releases don't support static
Ed Gould wrote:
On Feb 16, 2006, at 7:40 AM, Walt Farrell wrote:
On 2/15/2006 5:32 PM, Jerry Vernon wrote:
We are trying to restrict the execution of certain programs by LPAR
so we
can just license them by processor. The one in particular we are
looking
at is COBOL. By limiting COBOL
Hi Tony,
We also have CA-Top Secret (8.0)and I tried doing this by protecting a
PROGRAM resource by SYSID. However, I found that CA removed this feature
from TSS 5.1 onwards for performance reasons. So, how exactly are you doing
this with TSS?
Thanks,
Stefan
We are trying to restrict the execution of certain programs by LPAR so
we
can just license them by processor. The one in particular we are
looking
at is COBOL. By limiting COBOL compiles to one Development LPAR. Does
anyone know of any software that can be used to do this?
RACF cannot do this
: Redirecting Software Functionality
We are trying to restrict the execution of certain programs by LPAR so
we
can just license them by processor. The one in particular we are
looking
at is COBOL. By limiting COBOL compiles to one Development LPAR. Does
anyone know of any software that can
restrict the dataset via CPUID.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Stefan Finka
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 5:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Redirecting Software Functionality
Hi Tony,
We also have CA-Top
Timothy Sipples wrote:
I wonder if IPLing z/OS as z/OS.e would do the trick.
snip
This would, of course, entail additional restrictions--not just
the COBOL compiler--and I believe it would also require a change
from a z/OS license to a z/OS.e license.
--
John Eells
z/OS Technical
Itschak Mugzach wrote:
I would protect IBM product usage by specifying their name in IFAPRDxx
with STATE(DISABLED).
snip
This works only for products (and optional priced elements of
z/OS) that use the IFAEDREG service. I don't think the COBOL
compiler is one of them.
--
John Eells
z/OS
-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Eells
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 8:03 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Redirecting Software Functionality
Itschak Mugzach wrote:
I would protect IBM product usage by specifying their name in IFAPRDxx
AFAIK z/OS.e is exactly the same code as z/OS. The only
difference is what is allowed to be executed via IFAPRDxx
and contractual considerations.
snip
I wonder if IPLing z/OS as z/OS.e would do the trick.
/snip
--
For IBM-MAIN
On 2/15/2006 5:32 PM, Jerry Vernon wrote:
We are trying to restrict the execution of certain programs by LPAR so we
can just license them by processor. The one in particular we are looking
at is COBOL. By limiting COBOL compiles to one Development LPAR. Does
anyone know of any software that
On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 17:14 -0600, Ed Gould wrote:
But programmers can be fairly tricky. I have seen iebcopy of the
contents of the compiler (as well as the syslib of LE) done so they
can get around restrictions (like your entry).
Then take 'em to HR and have 'em shot. Seriously, this is
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Andrews
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 8:20 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Redirecting Software Functionality
On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 17:14 -0600, Ed Gould wrote
Subject: Re: Redirecting Software Functionality
I just love standards. There are so many of them. I wish IBM and all the
vendors would agree on ONE method of product protection and have
everyone convert to that method.
It would make all our lives so much easier
Mark Jacobs wrote:
I just love standards. There are so many of them. I wish IBM and all the
vendors would agree on ONE method of product protection and have
everyone convert to that method.
It was called IBM License Manager for z/OS. The idea was great; the
implementation was a total
In a message dated 2/16/2006 7:07:28 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
vendors would agree on ONE method of product protection and have
everyone convert to that method.
It would make all our lives so much easier.
Heck then they could outsource us to
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:07:17 -0500, Mark Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I just love standards. There are so many of them. I wish IBM and all the
vendors would agree on ONE method of product protection and have
everyone convert to that method.
It would make all our lives so much easier.
It's a
Other departments that have interest in this sort of behavior, at least where I
work, are Loss Prevention and Risk Management.
Bob
David Andrews wrote:
On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 17:14 -0600, Ed Gould wrote:
But programmers can be fairly tricky. I have seen iebcopy of the
contents of the
On Feb 16, 2006, at 7:40 AM, Walt Farrell wrote:
On 2/15/2006 5:32 PM, Jerry Vernon wrote:
We are trying to restrict the execution of certain programs by
LPAR so we
can just license them by processor. The one in particular we are
looking
at is COBOL. By limiting COBOL compiles to one
On Feb 16, 2006, at 8:19 AM, David Andrews wrote:
On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 17:14 -0600, Ed Gould wrote:
But programmers can be fairly tricky. I have seen iebcopy of the
contents of the compiler (as well as the syslib of LE) done so they
can get around restrictions (like your entry).
Then take
Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Bob Rutledge
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:21 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Redirecting Software Functionality
Other departments that have interest in this sort of behavior, at least
where I
work, are Loss Prevention and Risk
On Feb 16, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Hal Merritt wrote:
Don't forget our old friends in auditing. We are seeing these kinds of
questions.
I agree: it is a management issue. And audit trumps politics. More,
SOX
holds that the managers of the folks that get sneaky can be held
accountable.
My $0.02.
but I've wittered on enough for now ...
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: Ed Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 16 February, 2006 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: Redirecting Software Functionality
The other issue that I have
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ed Gould
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 2:10 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Redirecting Software Functionality
On Feb 16, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Hal Merritt wrote:
Don't forget our old friends in auditing. We are seeing these kinds of
questions.
I agree
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 02/16/2006
at 09:19 AM, David Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Then take 'em to HR and have 'em shot.
Why? Rope is reusable.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html
We don't care. We
On Feb 16, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
Ed,
When I was last on a long-term consultancy, by example, I tried to
encourage
a crude approach to documenting responsibility - and purpose - in a
common
library by creating a member $$$INDEX. Each line in this member
started with
the
On Feb 16, 2006, at 3:35 PM, Hal Merritt wrote:
SMF 30 records usually contain a program name.
Do some chargeback. Hit 'em in the budget.
One cool thing about this solution is that your customer base may deem
it enough of a business need to pay the freight.
I have always been in
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stefan Finka
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 4:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Redirecting Software Functionality
Hi Tony,
We also have CA-Top Secret (8.0)and I tried doing this
by protecting a PROGRAM resource by SYSID. However, I
found that CA removed
On Feb 16, 2006, at 10:07 PM, tony babonas wrote:
I hasten to clarify, we restrict program usage, in our
case SAS, by restricting the load library from which it
is executed, for example our permission was written as
follows:
TSS PER( SASPROF ) DSN( HLQ.SAS.LOADLIB ) ACCESS(FETCH)
SYSID(ESYS)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf
Of Jerry Vernon
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:33 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Redirecting Software Functionality
Hi,
We are trying to restrict the execution of certain programs by LPAR so
we
can just license them by processor. The one in particular
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jerry Vernon
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:33 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Redirecting Software Functionality
Hi,
We are trying to restrict the execution of certain
ThruPut Manager will do this very easily.
I've heard of sites who use WLM Scheduling Environments to accomlish
similar results, as well.
The prior suggestions of a JES2 exit, plus the suggestion of a WLM
scheduling environment, might be a pretty good roll your own solution.
Brian
On Wed, 15
On Feb 15, 2006, at 4:39 PM, Imbriale, Donald (Exchange) wrote:
Are the data sets in linklist?
Are the data sets in the master catalog?
Is the master catalog shared by more than one system?
Is the sysres shared by more than one system?
Is PARMLIB shared by more than one system?
On Feb 15, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Brian Peterson wrote:
ThruPut Manager will do this very easily.
I've heard of sites who use WLM Scheduling Environments to accomlish
similar results, as well.
The prior suggestions of a JES2 exit, plus the suggestion of a WLM
scheduling environment, might be a
OSEM from Trident Services can do what you are looking for.
(http://www.triserve.com)
We use it to restrict SAS to one LPAR as an example. I did a
presentation at Share Anaheim on the product and its use.
On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 16:32 -0600, Jerry Vernon wrote:
Hi,
We are trying to restrict
The ISV MVS Solutions Inc. has a software product ThruPut Manager which
provides user-defined intelligent job routing and much more, such as
resource staging (prior to job-initiation) including production support for
virtual volume staging as well as DFHSM HRECALLs and silo/rack tape volume
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Redirecting Software Functionality
OSEM from Trident Services can do what you are looking
for.
(http://www.triserve.com)
We use it to restrict SAS to one LPAR as an example. I
did a presentation at Share Anaheim on the product and
its use.
On Wed, 2006-02-15
41 matches
Mail list logo
