In of25ea0715.7e6ae45f-on8525770e.00411387-8525770e.0041a...@us.ibm.com,
on 04/23/2010
at 07:56 AM, Peter Relson rel...@us.ibm.com said:
JSCBAUTH: If you turn it off, you almost certainly must *never* turn it
back on again, as you have been giving control to unauthorized code which
could
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:22:58 -0500 Chris Craddock crashlu...@gmail.com
wrote:
:
: As long as all work areas used by the authorized program are in system key
: there should not be any exposure by using SYNCH.
:True in an absolute theoretical sense, but in reality there is NO way to
:guarantee
ADRNAPF: this is provided for only one non-system case -- loading
non-executable code which, for some reason, the authorized application
does not need protection against modification. It is definitely not
appropriate to use it for loading code that you will then call (although I
suppose you
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:20:03 +0100, Sam Siegel s...@pscsi.net wrote:
: If you use SYNCH or ATTACH with JSTCB=YES, then you're in a whole
: different world, but System Integrity is still very much your
: responsibility.
:I was going to use SYNCH(X). ATTACH(X) does not make sense for this
Did you retain any authorization when doing the SYNCH (such as, having
your
program running in supervisor state or a system key)? If so, you are
likely
to still have some major system integrity holes. Mixing unauthorized
and
authorized code is extremely tricky, and most people get it
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:14:27 -0500 Walt Farrell wfarr...@us.ibm.com wrote:
:On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:20:03 +0100, Sam Siegel s...@pscsi.net wrote:
: : If you use SYNCH or ATTACH with JSTCB=YES, then you're in a whole
: : different world, but System Integrity is still very much your
: :
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Rob Schramm rob.schr...@siriuscom.comwrote:
Did you retain any authorization when doing the SYNCH (such as, having
your
program running in supervisor state or a system key)? If so, you are
likely
to still have some major system integrity holes. Mixing
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:29:51 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
As long as all work areas used by the authorized program are in system key
there should not be any exposure by using SYNCH.
The code also needs to be in storage protected by a system key.
--
Tom Marchant
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.comwrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:29:51 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
As long as all work areas used by the authorized program are in system key
there should not be any exposure by using SYNCH.
The code also needs to be in
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:36:50 +0100, Sam Siegel s...@pscsi.net wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.comwrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:29:51 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
As long as all work areas used by the authorized program are in system key
there
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:29:51 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
bdis...@dissensoftware.com wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:14:27 -0500 Walt Farrell wfarr...@us.ibm.com wrote:
:Did you retain any authorization when doing the SYNCH (such as, having your
:program running in supervisor state or a system key)? If
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:28:32 -0400, Rob Schramm rob.schr...@siriuscom.com
wrote:
Did you retain any authorization when doing the SYNCH (such as, having
your
program running in supervisor state or a system key)? If so, you are
likely
to still have some major system integrity holes. Mixing
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Walt Farrell wfarr...@us.ibm.com wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:36:50 +0100, Sam Siegel s...@pscsi.net wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:29:51 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
As
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Walt Farrell wfarr...@us.ibm.com wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:28:32 -0400, Rob Schramm rob.schr...@siriuscom.com
wrote:
Did you retain any authorization when doing the SYNCH (such as, having
your
program running in supervisor state or a system key)? If
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:13:07 +0100 Sam Siegel s...@pscsi.net wrote:
:On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Walt Farrell wfarr...@us.ibm.com wrote:
: On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:28:32 -0400, Rob Schramm rob.schr...@siriuscom.com
:
: wrote:
: Did you retain any authorization when doing the SYNCH (such
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:13:07 +0100, Sam Siegel wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Walt Farrell wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:28:32 -0400, Rob Schramm wrote:
Do you have some guidance for the most people?
But that leads into my (personal) preferred solution: separate the
non-authorized
As long as all work areas used by the authorized program are in system key
there should not be any exposure by using SYNCH.
True in an absolute theoretical sense, but in reality there is NO way to
guarantee that. If we're talking about a function like OPEN as the example
case of a privileged
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:24:19 +0100 Sam Siegel s...@pscsi.net wrote:
:On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Tony Harminc t...@harminc.net wrote:
: On 20 April 2010 19:09, Sam Siegel s...@pscsi.net wrote:
: With all of the discussion about APF and loading programs from various
: types
: of
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Binyamin Dissen bdis...@dissensoftware.com
wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:24:19 +0100 Sam Siegel s...@pscsi.net wrote:
:On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Tony Harminc t...@harminc.net wrote:
: On 20 April 2010 19:09, Sam Siegel s...@pscsi.net wrote:
: With
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Binyamin Dissen bdis...@dissensoftware.com
wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:24:19 +0100 Sam Siegel s...@pscsi.net wrote:
:On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Tony Harminc t...@harminc.net wrote:
: On 20 April 2010 19:09, Sam Siegel s...@pscsi.net wrote:
: With
20 matches
Mail list logo
