Re: Suppluing software to run on unsupported OS was Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-20 Thread Mike Schwab
Behalf Of Steve Beaver > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 6:57 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Suppluing software to run on unsupported OS was Re: LE strikes > again > > Tim, you may have to go to ARCH(4) > > ---

Re: Suppluing software to run on unsupported OS was Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-19 Thread Charles Mills
ARCH(4) is 390 mode! Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Steve Beaver Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 6:57 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Suppluing software to run on unsupported OS was Re: LE strikes

Re: Suppluing software to run on unsupported OS was Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-19 Thread Steve Beaver
] >On Behalf Of Timothy Sipples >Sent: 16 July 2017 12:14 >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: Re: LE strikes again > >Robin Atwood wrote: >>I had sent the customer a version of the product compiled with XL/C at >>ARCH(7) but that was not low enough! It looks like

Suppluing software to run on unsupported OS was Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-19 Thread Clark Morris
t;Behalf Of Timothy Sipples >Sent: 16 July 2017 12:14 >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: Re: LE strikes again > >Robin Atwood wrote: >>I had sent the customer a version of the product compiled with XL/C at >>ARCH(7) but that was not low enough! It looks like ARCH(5) i

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

2017-07-19 Thread Brian Westerman
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

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

2017-07-18 Thread Charles Mills
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

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

2017-07-18 Thread John McKown
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

Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-17 Thread Timothy Sipples
Of course that's up to you, but for every ARCH step you decrement you're leaving compiler optimizations behind on the cutting room floor. For example, if you're shipping an ARCH(5) build (z900/z800 compatible) to a customer that can run ARCH(11) (z13/z13s), you're leaving about a decade and a half

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

2017-07-17 Thread Brian Westerman
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

Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-17 Thread Robin Atwood
: 16 July 2017 12:14 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: LE strikes again Robin Atwood wrote: >I had sent the customer a version of the product compiled with XL/C at >ARCH(7) but that was not low enough! It looks like ARCH(5) is necessary. Not quite. On a z890 (or z990) machine

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

2017-07-16 Thread Timothy Sipples
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

Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-15 Thread Timothy Sipples
Robin Atwood wrote: >I had sent the customer a version of the product compiled with XL/C at >ARCH(7) but that was not low enough! It looks like ARCH(5) is necessary. Not quite. On a z890 (or z990) machine ARCH(6) or lower is necessary. ARCH (5) or lower is necessary on z800 and z900 machines.

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

2017-07-15 Thread Anne & Lynn Wheeler
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

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

2017-07-15 Thread Charles Mills
: 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

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

2017-07-15 Thread Anne & Lynn Wheeler
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

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

2017-07-15 Thread scott Ford
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

Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-14 Thread Robin Atwood
who helped. Robin -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Hunkeler Sent: 12 July 2017 01:32 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: AW: Re: LE strikes again >>SLIP SET,C=0C1,J=jobname,ML=1,END >> >>T

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

2017-07-12 Thread Anne & Lynn Wheeler
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

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

2017-07-12 Thread Paul Gilmartin
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

2017-07-12 Thread Anne & Lynn Wheeler
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,

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

2017-07-12 Thread Charles Mills
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

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

2017-07-12 Thread Paul Gilmartin
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

2017-07-12 Thread Tony Harminc
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

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

2017-07-12 Thread Jim Stefanik
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

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

2017-07-12 Thread Itschak Mugzach
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

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

2017-07-12 Thread Charles Mills
. 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

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

2017-07-12 Thread R.S.
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: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-12 Thread Ray Overby
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

2017-07-12 Thread Charles Mills
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

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

2017-07-12 Thread R.S.
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: Running unsupported is dangerous was Re: AW: Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-12 Thread Timothy Sipples
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

AW: Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-11 Thread Peter Hunkeler
>>SLIP SET,C=0C1,J=jobname,ML=1,END >> >>Then have them load the dump into IPCS, select option 2.2 and send you the >>results. > > >I don't think you can SLIP trap an 001 program check as long as LE is running >with TRAP(ON,SPIE). LE's ESPIE exit will gain control before SLIP; and LE will

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

2017-07-11 Thread Charles Mills
-- 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

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

2017-07-11 Thread Clark Morris
[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 >>> >>>

Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-11 Thread Robin Atwood
Subject: AW: Re: LE strikes again >I never knew that! I will ask the customer to update the JCL to use the PARM field. ... and ask them to add a //SYSABEND DD SYSOUT=h DD-Statemebt, where "h" is a HOLD class, so that you can have a look or get information from the dump. -- P

AW: Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-11 Thread Peter Hunkeler
>I never knew that! I will ask the customer to update the JCL to use the PARM >field. ... and ask them to add a //SYSABEND DD SYSOUT=h DD-Statemebt, where "h" is a HOLD class, so that you can have a look or get information from the dump. -- Peter Hunkeler

Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-11 Thread Robin Atwood
I never knew that! I will ask the customer to update the JCL to use the PARM field. Thanks Robin -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Hunkeler Sent: 11 July 2017 18:18 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: AW: Re: LE

AW: Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-11 Thread Peter Hunkeler
>SLIP SET,C=0C1,J=jobname,ML=1,END > >Then have them load the dump into IPCS, select option 2.2 and send you the >results. I don't think you can SLIP trap an 001 program check as long as LE is running with TRAP(ON,SPIE). LE's ESPIE exit will gain control before SLIP; and LE will do error

Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-11 Thread Binyamin Dissen
SLIP SET,C=0C1,J=jobname,ML=1,END Then have them load the dump into IPCS, select option 2.2 and send you the results. On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 18:20:16 +0700 Robin Atwood wrote: :>A customer has installed one of our products and gets an immediate 0C1 when :>it is started. The

Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-11 Thread Robin Atwood
Yes, ignore my other post, PARM='TRAP(OFF)/' should work. Thanks Robin -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Hunkeler Sent: 10 July 2017 21:54 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: AW: Re: LE strikes again

Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-11 Thread Robin Atwood
So PARM='/TRAP(OFF)' must be used? -- Robin -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Hunkeler Sent: 11 July 2017 02:33 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: LE strikes again >You can also use a JCL statem

AW: Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-10 Thread Peter Hunkeler
>>>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 >> >> >>No, he can't because he's on z/OS 1.4. I already proposed CEEOPTS DD, and >>Norbert Friemel remembered me it's not

Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-10 Thread Clark Morris
[Default] On 10 Jul 2017 12:31:53 -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 >> > > >No, he can't

Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-10 Thread Peter Hunkeler
>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 No, he can't because he's on z/OS 1.4. I already proposed CEEOPTS DD, and Norbert Friemel remembered me it's not yet supported

Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-10 Thread Lizette Koehler
Of Peter Hunkeler > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 7:54 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: AW: Re: LE strikes again > > >The CEEOPTS-DD-statement was new in z/OS 1.7 > > > Ooops..., I forgot about this fact. Too long ago. > > > Can you try the TRAP(

AW: Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-10 Thread Peter Hunkeler
>The CEEOPTS-DD-statement was new in z/OS 1.7 Ooops..., I forgot about this fact. Too long ago. Can you try the TRAP(OFF) via EXEC PARM? For C, I believe LE PARMs come before program options in the PARM and have to end with a slash / -- Peter Hunkeler

Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-10 Thread Norbert Friemel
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:49:10 +0200, Peter Hunkeler wrote: > >Have the customer add a DD statement for CEEOPTS and add TRAP(OFF) as sysin >data to that.This will turn off LE's ESTAE and ESPIE routines, so you should >get a dump of the original problem. > The CEEOPTS-DD-statement was new in z/OS

Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-10 Thread Robin Atwood
We tried that and it didn't make any difference. Using the IPCS LEDATA exit with CEEDUMP tells us there there is no LE environment, which is strange since the main module is XL/C. Thanks Robin -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On

Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-10 Thread Robin Atwood
Don- Thanks for that, will do. Robin -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Don Poitras Sent: 10 July 2017 18:40 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: LE strikes again IPCS needs to be run with a MIGLIB from z/OS 1.4

Re: LE strikes again

2017-07-10 Thread Don Poitras
IPCS needs to be run with a MIGLIB from z/OS 1.4. IBM seems to be reluctant to just provide these, so if you haven't saved one, you need to have the customer run systrace and send you the output. In article <00c401d2f96e$84910120$8db30360$@gmail.com> you wrote: > A customer has installed one of