Re: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again

000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu (Paul Gilmartin) writes: > 8x11mm Minox camera? I suppose physical security can interdict that. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minox#Technical_details_of_Minox_8.C3.9711_cameras re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017g.html#74 Running unsupported is

Re: DFHSM Issue

Andy After reading the 'disclaimer ' I have to ask if your CSX in JAX? Thought you were z/OS 2.1 or 2.2.. Regards, Doug Winn Dixie . On Jul 12, 2017, at 14:34, Thomas Wiatt wrote: Did you try PERCENTVALID(20) ? On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:21 PM, retired mainframer <

Re: DFHSM Issue

Have you tried to recycle the first volume of the connected set? I would expect that to pull in and recycle the following volumes. Regards, Doug . On Jul 12, 2017, at 14:34, Thomas Wiatt wrote: Did you try PERCENTVALID(20) ? On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:21 PM, retired

Re: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:58:44 -0700, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > >... all FS documents were softcopy and could only be read >from specially connected 3270 terminals (no file copy, printing, etc, >before ibm/pc and things like screen scraping). some FS refs

Re: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again

charl...@mcn.org (Charles Mills) writes: > Frankly, in the beginnings of computing, including in DOS and OS/360, > there was often an assumption that all users -- at least all "real" > (TSO and development, as opposed to CICS or application) users -- were > trusted. There was a lot of your gun,

Request for Enhancement for DD JCL statement for "new" data sets

Click the following link for my RFE discussed about a week ago regarding an option for a DD statement to define a "new" file and not get an error if the file already exists. https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe_ID=107620 Vote early (and often?)! Frank

Re: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again

Frankly, in the beginnings of computing, including in DOS and OS/360, there was often an assumption that all users -- at least all "real" (TSO and development, as opposed to CICS or application) users -- were trusted. There was a lot of your gun, your bullet, your foot. The assumption was that

Re: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:38:39 -0400, Tony Harminc wrote: >On 12 July 2017 at 12:21, Charles Mills wrote: > >> It's not the malware you know about that should worry you the most. The >> phrase "zero day exploit" comes to mind. > >With something as old as z/OS 1.4 it's not even just zero-days. There

Re: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again

On 12 July 2017 at 12:21, Charles Mills wrote: > It's not the malware you know about that should worry you the most. The > phrase "zero day exploit" comes to mind. With something as old as z/OS 1.4 it's not even just zero-days. There are several well known gaping holes in z/OS

Is there a SORT day-of-week function?

Is there any way in SORT control cards (either DFSORT or SYNCSORT) to test for a certain day of the week? Something like this, assuming '3' represents the DOW value for Wednesday: OUTREC IFTHEN=(WHEN=(DOW(),EQ,3), BUILD=(C'WEDNESDAY=DATE VALUE + 5',+5)),

Re: DFHSM Issue

Did you try PERCENTVALID(20) ? On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:21 PM, retired mainframer < retired-mainfra...@q.com> wrote: > If the first file on the tape is a continuation from a previous tape, both > tapes would need to meet the percent criteria. Ditto if the last file is > continued on another

Re: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again

I'll throw in a bit of "extra" behind this: Anyone who works in security almost certainly has heard of Metasploit. If not, Google it - it's pretty much a framework that puts known attacks into an easy-to-use platform for pentesting (or illicit activities if one decided to use it for such

Re: DFHSM Issue

If the first file on the tape is a continuation from a previous tape, both tapes would need to meet the percent criteria. Ditto if the last file is continued on another tape. > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of

Re: DFHSM Issue

agreed -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Silvio Camplani Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 1:12 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: DFHSM Issue I think they do not show up because they are not FULL. Issue this

Re: DFHSM Issue

I think they do not show up because they are not FULL. Issue this command, then try again:F hsmproc,DELVOL S00094 BACKUP(MARKFULL) Regards, Silvio Camplani zSeries Sr. Analyst, Systems Support Bombardier On Wed, Jul 12, 2017, at 02:01 PM, Pesce, Andy wrote: > So, I am having an issue

Re: DFHSM Issue

1) Volumes that are not marked full are not eligible for recycle. Look up the PARTIALTAPE operand of the SETSYS command. 2) look up the variations of the LIST TTOC command in the fine manual. There are several SELECT options that provide useful subsets. E.g SELECT(FAILEDRECYCLE) ,

Re: DFHSM Issue

I think HSM will skip the volumes if they have ever failed a recycle in the past? So you have to manually recycle them one at a time (from what I remember). -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Pesce, Andy Sent:

DFHSM Issue

So, I am having an issue with DFHSM Backup tapes. I tried opening a PMR and the first thing I get back is, "z/OS 1.13 is an unsupported release, and you don't have an extended contract". Anyway, thought I would send this to see if anyone else has seen this issue. When I list the

Re: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again

Just my two cents... there are many reasons why a supported and updated version is important, and why mainframe is just an other (big, complex) server in the computer room. Linux on z: servers that were located in DMZ, now running on z usually without fw ("because it slows communication"). I

Re: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again

It's not Windows versus z/OS. Whether it is number of instances or number of viruses or number of mentions in airline magazines, that battle was over a long time ago. "Windows has more viruses than z/OS" is not a substitute for being up-to-date with support and patches. "But Windows is much

Re: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again

W dniu 2017-07-12 o 15:53, Charles Mills pisze: I know some malware for Win10, but I cannot remind any for z/OS 1.4... Partially because most of the community has a policy of publicizing vulnerabilities, but z/OS does not. The fact that you do not know of any malware for z/OS 1.whatever does

Re: z/OSMF-Based Installation (WasL Re: AW: Re: EAV volumes and SYSRES)

> On Jul 12, 2017, at 5:33 AM, John Eells wrote: > > > And no, the graphic on p. 35 has nothing to do with robots. I just thought > it was a neat graphic that helped illustrate the modernization of a 25+ year > old installation process.\ I guess I have been watching STNG

Re: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again

One would assume that the older z/OS system is important to the installation. That the data on the system is important, who can review and update the data is important, as well as the system's availability. Key Resources, Inc has direct knowledge of vulnerabilities on older, non-supported

Re: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again

> I know some malware for Win10, but I cannot remind any for z/OS 1.4... Partially because most of the community has a policy of publicizing vulnerabilities, but z/OS does not. The fact that you do not know of any malware for z/OS 1.whatever does not mean that it does not exist. Or expanding on

Re: z/OSMF-Based Installation (WasL Re: AW: Re: EAV volumes and SYSRES)

> Might DB2/CICS/etc. have their own predefined workflows Yes Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Turner Cheryl L Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 5:23 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: z/OSMF-Based

Re: z/OSMF-Based Installation (WasL Re: AW: Re: EAV volumes and SYSRES)

BMC was very, very much on-board from the get-go in the design of the installation process, so I would think that whatever internal knowledge BMC had of how to make a good install process got incorporated into the z/OSMF process. Charles Good point. Since the term 'ISV' has already been

Re: z/OSMF-Based Installation (WasL Re: AW: Re: EAV volumes and SYSRES)

A double AMEN - I have not had the luxury of time to use Z/OSMF, my TCPIP guy requested I install it for ease of managing TLS Policies, my big mistake was installing the product in my /Service directory and there it stayed for almost 2 years. a call to suppose and no help fixing my

Re: z/OSMF-Based Installation (WasL Re: AW: Re: EAV volumes and SYSRES)

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Turner Cheryl L > Sent: 12 July, 2017 14:23 > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: z/OSMF-Based Installation (WasL Re: AW: Re: EAV volumes and > SYSRES) > > Not sure what is

Re: z/OSMF-Based Installation (WasL Re: AW: Re: EAV volumes and SYSRES)

Not sure what is being planned but is this an all or nothing proposal? Meaning you either have to use it for installation or the order doesn't get installed? I don't know if others here may agree with me, but I, and some others in my shop, would prefer to use our existing local installation

Re: z/OSMF-Based Installation (WasL Re: AW: Re: EAV volumes and SYSRES)

>But is it a valid data point? We use z/OSMF only insofar as we are forced to >for IP configuration and upkeep. We did not use z/OSMF to install v2.2, and I >don't know whether we'll use it to install v2.3. There is talk of it, but it >seems to be largely motivated by the thought that we

Re: z/OSMF-Based Installation (WasL Re: AW: Re: EAV volumes and SYSRES)

Art Gutowski wrote: At the last SHARE, the question was asked at the multivendor installation-related session about how many in the room were z/OSMF users. In the past, I've seen those raising a hand to be perhaps 25% of a similarly-sized crowd, but in March about 2/3 of those present raised

Re: z/OSMF-Based Installation (WasL Re: AW: Re: EAV volumes and SYSRES)

Edward Gould wrote: Interesting but I am not convinced that this is any better than what is currently available. It also looks (to me) complicated and one person seems to have to be doing “it” from start to end, is that the case? Slide 35(?) are you trying to show a robot can do this but not

Re: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again

W dniu 2017-07-12 o 08:40, Timothy Sipples pisze: Clark Morris wrote: Running 1.4 on any system that isn't isolated is the equivalent of running Windows XP. I think Charles Mills provided some interesting, useful follow-up remarks. I wholeheartedly agree that sole reliance on "perimeter"

Re: z/OSMF-Based Installation (WasL Re: AW: Re: EAV volumes and SYSRES)

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 07:35:52 -0400, John Eells wrote: >Everyone: IBM is headed toward using z/OSMF Software Management as the >installer. Please go back to near the beginning of this thread with the >old topic name to catch up on the discussion thus far. > >More on the SHARE

Re: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again

Clark Morris wrote: >Running 1.4 on any system that isn't isolated is the equivalent >of running Windows XP. I think Charles Mills provided some interesting, useful follow-up remarks. I wholeheartedly agree that sole reliance on "perimeter" defense no longer makes sense, if it ever did. Risk