I have to disagree, over the last 3 years only 5 sites were government related,
and 2 were universities.
Brian
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the
the
mainframe
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Brian Westerman
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 7:39 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again
I sort
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Brian Westerman <
brian_wester...@syzygyinc.com> wrote:
> I sort of "specialize" in upgrading sites that have put off an upgrade to
> a more current OS for (quite) a while and I can tell you from experience
> with over 100 of these sites that there are LOTs of
I sort of "specialize" in upgrading sites that have put off an upgrade to a
more current OS for (quite) a while and I can tell you from experience with
over 100 of these sites that there are LOTs of reasons for them being at that
old release, and all (well, the vast majority any way) of them
Scott Ford wrote:
>But from a application point of view, if the application is using AT/TLS
>and there are Pagent protection policies for PORTS/IP addresses and the
>application is using encryption, where's the risk ???
There's plenty of risk when running an unsupported, unpatched release. Even
d not completing it so as to tie up resources
> and make real connections impossible.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017g.html#74 Running unsupported is dangerous was
Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/20
: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again
As a vendor i have been receiving questions about DoS attacks on z/OS ..
I understand the idea / concept of perimeter defense , i was a Network Engineer
in a pass life.
But from a application poi
idfli...@gmail.com (scott Ford) writes:
> As a vendor i have been receiving questions about DoS attacks on z/OS ..
> I understand the idea / concept of perimeter defense , i was a Network
> Engineer in a pass life.
> But from a application point of view, if the application is using AT/TLS
> and
urity 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
> dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again
>
> also in the wake of the company's &q
ported is dangerous was
Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again
also in the wake of the company's "pentagon papers" type event, they
retrofitted all company copier machines with serial number identifier on
the underside of the glass, that would show up on all pages
copied. example from this copi
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
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,
artin
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 4:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again
I think it was a philosophical blunder early in OS, to presume that a caller
could always be relied on to validate arguments, so called progra
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
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
x on z + WINE = bad idea)
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of
Itschak Mugzach <imugz...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 13:36
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again
he malware you know about that should worry you the most. The
> phrase "zero day exploit" comes to mind.
>
> Charles
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of R.S.
> Sent: Wednesday, Ju
.
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 8:30 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: 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
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
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
o: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: 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
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"
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
--
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Clark Morris
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 6:18 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again
[Default] On 10 Jul 2017 21:58:28 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm
[Default] On 10 Jul 2017 21:58:28 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
p...@gmx.ch (Peter Hunkeler) wrote:
You can also use a JCL statement to override (if available) LE Parms.
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_1.13.0/com.ibm.zos.r13.ceea500/ceedd.htm
>>>
>>>
25 matches
Mail list logo