Bummer
Brian
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Agreed
Gadi
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Brian Westerman
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 09:44
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: z13s with single CPU able to use SMT?
Bummer
Brian
Brian Westerman wrote:
>Bummer
About what do you say "bummer"?
TIA!
Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the
Nope!
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Mark Jacobs
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 6:39 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Dataset encryption question
Outside of using dataset conditional access rules is there
I suppose there might be security concerns around knowing what gets
fetched?
It has nothing to do with "knowing" anything. It has to do with the
environment in which the code calling the exit runs, and avoiding
crippling the system by doing something differently that would likely have
Outside of using dataset conditional access rules is there anyway to prevent
someone from copying encrypted dataset HLQ1.data to HLQ2.data? They have access
rights to both HLQ's and the encryption key.
Mark Jacobs
Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com), Swiss-based encrypted email.
As Parwez correctly pointed out, z/OS's SMT 2 is limited to zIIPs.
Since you cannot have an LPAR with only a zIIP (you could not IPL it), you
therefore cannot have an LPAR with only a single CPU running z/OS that is
able to use SMT. You could write your own operating system that allows
that.
I think this was his response to CPs not supporting SMT
Regards
Parwez Hamid
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Elardus Engelbrecht
Sent: 28 June 2019 11:14
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: z13s with single CPU able to use SMT?
No, and is one of the "problems or challenges" if you will with dataset
encryption.An enterprise goes to the significan effort to do data at rest
encryption, yet anyone that has legitimate READ access to the data can be
sloppy, and re-create the exposure just by copying the data to another
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 6:39 AM Mark Jacobs <
0224d287a4b1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> Outside of using dataset conditional access rules is there anyway to
> prevent someone from copying encrypted dataset HLQ1.data to HLQ2.data? They
> have access rights to both HLQ's and the
Peter Relson wrote:
I suppose there might be security concerns around knowing what gets
fetched?
It has nothing to do with "knowing" anything. It has to do with the
environment in which the code calling the exit runs, and avoiding
crippling the system by doing something differently that
If they have access to HLQ1.data and the encryption key. Why would they need to
copy it to another dataset?
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Friday, June 28, 2019, 7:39 AM, Mark Jacobs
<0224d287a4b1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
Outside of using dataset conditional access
They don't, but sometimes they do. We have several data management rules in
place for HLQ1 datasets, i.e. no backups, which wouldn't carry over if the
dataset was copied to HLQ2.
Mark Jacobs
Sent from ProtonMail, Swiss-based encrypted email.
GPG Public Key -
Maybe one is SMS-Managed and one isn't.
On 2019-06-28 08:52, Mark Jacobs wrote:
> They don't, but sometimes they do. We have several data management rules in
> place for HLQ1 datasets, i.e. no backups, which wouldn't carry over if the
> dataset was copied to HLQ2.
>
> Mark Jacobs
>
>
> Sent
One last thought
Depending on what you are going to list
Option 3.4 can do a good job.
When the list is presented, you can issue the SAVE command
SAVE without any thing else will place the listing in an ISPF dataset (USE the
PF1 HELP Key to see where it goes)
Or you can use
SAVE MYLIST
This is just for discussion. I am seemingly one of few z/OS sysprogs (et
al.) who view UNIX services as just another set of tools in the box, along
with the "legacy" z/OS tools. E.g. I am just as willing to use "awk" for
something as REXX. But I've noticed that many, my manager included, who
Using RACF multi-level security will enable you to do this.
See Chapter 5 of the RACF Security Administrators manual, SA23-2289-30.
Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw | Security Lead | RSM Partners Ltd
Web: www.rsmpartners.com
‘Dance like no one is watching. Encrypt like everyone is.’
Actually, with MLS authorized personnel can write down. That's necessary in
order to provide unclassified summaries of classified data.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
John
Thanks Peter. That pretty much confirms the negative. Oh well. Dave
At 6/23/2019 06:38 PM, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
The end of that DFSMS section on "Variable-Length Record Formats"
does cover the VBS differences and bit settings and capabilities.
But again, I'm not aware of any
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 22:38:13 +, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
> ...
>I did also mean to say to Dave that I have always seen these prefix fields
>referred to as Record or Block *Descriptor* Words, not *Control* Words., but
>either or both could be considered appropriate.
>
For RECFM=VBS, I've
Thanks everyone for your input. Sorry for the delays in responding -- I was OOO
for a day plus.
I am going to re-phrase this question and post it again. I am going to drop up
one level to the "real" problem to be solved.
I *suspect* that my problem with DESC=3 not behaving exactly as I hoped
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:42:16 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>> Even when I use UNIX for an "ad hoc" report for myself, my manager is
>> "unhappy" with it and asks why I don't just use REXX.
>
>A perfect example of micromanagement, straight out of Dilbert (which is
>autobiographical, IMHO.)
Yes.
John,
A very familiar tune. After reading through this thread, it illustrates the
level on ignorance that exists in some companies. I have been seeing unless
it paid for we don’t do it .
Scott
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 2:04 PM Tom Marchant <
You have to carve the bird at the joints. When the only too in your toolbox is
pipe, everything looks like a filter.
REXX is a wonderful language for some purposes, but there are things that it
does not do well. Does your management really want you to use REXX instead of
PL/I or SAS to
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 13:49:45 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>Thanks everyone for your input. Sorry for the delays in responding -- I was
>OOO for a day plus.
>
>I am going to re-phrase this question and post it again. I am going to drop up
>one level to the "real" problem to be solved.
>
>I
using "NAME" produces two lines (one that includes that catalog). Once you
know that catalog
adding "CAT(blahblah)" to the LISTCAT will give one line per dataset name.
A better option is my version of IGGCSI00 - CATSRCH. It can be used with a
panel or
just by itself -"TSO CATSRCH
Of course! You use the best available tool for the job.
Now yes, "best" involves many factors including whether there is more than one
person in the shop who can maintain the code.
But this just sounds like resistance to change. I have always that many in this
industry ironically tended to be
On 6/28/2019 4:29 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
It has nothing to do with "knowing" anything. It has to do with the
environment in which the code calling the exit runs, and avoiding
crippling the system by doing something differently that would likely have
horrendous performance characteristcs..
It
On Jun 28, 2019, at 9:27 AM, John McKown
mailto:john.archie.mck...@gmail.com>> wrote:
This is just for discussion. I am seemingly one of few z/OS sysprogs (et
al.) who view UNIX services as just another set of tools in the box, along
with the "legacy" z/OS tools. E.g. I am just as willing to use
John,
There is nothing "efficient and cost effective" in eliminating brain trust
material and people who are willing/able to dig in and use the tools available.
I've seen firsthand (as I'm sure, many on this list) the short term "gain" and
long term crippling of a company by doing just that -
For a manager to insist that every program should be written in ReXX is a
little like a conductor insisting that everyone in the orchestra should be
playing a trombone.
--
Tom Marchant
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:27:28 -0500, John McKown wrote:
>This is just for discussion. I am seemingly one of
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:27:28 -0500, John McKown wrote:
>This is just for discussion. I am seemingly one of few z/OS sysprogs (et
>al.) who view UNIX services as just another set of tools in the box, along
>with the "legacy" z/OS tools. E.g. I am just as willing to use "awk" for
>something as
> In the late 1960s,
That mens that ISYS/IBJOB was available, hence Fortran IV.
> FORTRAN II on a 7090.
Was that a leftover from the 1950s?
> On the 3600, I began using FORTRAN IV facilities. My immediate
supervisor frowned
Why, when it was also available on the 7090?
--
Shmuel (Seymour
Management by inertia. How well does your manager knw REXX (I have my
suspicions.)?
FWIW, I don't care for Perl syntax but it's one of the languages I use at home.
Why? Regexen are too powerful to ignore and CPAN maintains an awesome package
library.
A programmer with only one language is
34 matches
Mail list logo
