Radoslaw
I agree that you wouldn't do this in production, but it is a perfectly valid
way to measure the throughput of a host channel.
Besides fanning out through an 8Gb switch to multiple FICON blades or
storage controllers, I would also suggest that you make sure the other port
on the 8S
hi all,
is it possible to issue a console command via CONSOLE+GETMSG in a rexx
without the resulting messages occurring in the syslog?
thanks for your help
stephen
---
Dr. Stephen Fedtke
Enterprise-IT-Security.com
Seestrasse 3a
CH-6300 Zug
Switzerland
Tel. ++41-(0)41-710-4005
Hi,
I am new to System programming and have the following doubt...
Below is the extract of latest HOLDDATA from IBM siteand what I
understand of it.
++ NULL. /* Enhanced Holddata from 02/07/2012 to 03/08/2012 */
++HOLD(HAAWA10) FMID(HAAWA10) REASON(AM58699) ERROR
hi all,
is it possible to issue a console command via CONSOLE+GETMSG in a rexx
without the
resulting messages occurring in the syslog?
thanks for your help
stephen
---
Dr. Stephen Fedtke
Enterprise-IT-Security.com
I am not sure about your environment, but in mine we have CA
In 5664523867703651.wa.dropipopigmail@bama.ua.edu, on 03/07/2012
at 02:47 PM, Ed Mackmahon dropip...@gmail.com said:
How would you prefer a product running on a server outside the
mainframe will interface with the mainframe?
That would depend on what it was interfacing with.
--
In a40b6ee2-4dce-43be-8253-048a17c74...@optonline.net, on 03/06/2012
at 05:52 PM, Micheal Butz michealb...@optonline.net said:
But plays no role as far as access register value
Why would you use LAE if all you wanted to do was to set an AR?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and
In 7f75cd8a-0b29-448a-bac8-2738c7c3a...@optonline.net, on 03/06/2012
at 09:29 PM, Micheal Butz michealb...@optonline.net said:
Or a more practical use of LAE
Is chaing thru control blocks from another address space SAC. 512
LAM R3,R3,ASNALET
L. R3,ASXBFTCB
USING TCB,R3
LAE.
In a6b9336cdb62bb46b9f8708e686a7ea00e924b3...@nrhmms8p02.uicnrh.dom,
on 03/07/2012
at 08:59 AM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com said:
The OP has been posting from an iPhone. Perhaps he tried to read the
PoPs on that device?
Or perhaps he is using a current version and the PDF is
All good points.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 11:19 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Tips for continuing DD statement with only one parameter field
On Wed,
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 04:39:45 -0600, Veena, Sridhar wrote:
++HOLD(HAAWA10) FMID(HAAWA10) REASON(AM58699) ERROR DATE(12066)
COMMENT(SMRTDATA(SYMP(DAL) CHGDT(120306)))
CLASS(HIPER).
++HOLD(HAAW910) FMID(HAAW910) REASON(AM58694) ERROR DATE(12060)
COMMENT(SMRTDATA(SYMP(DAL) CHGDT(120229)))
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 15:40:25 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
By PCFLIH backdoor I mean a routine whose address
replaced the address of the IBM supplied PCFLIH.
That would be a hook or an intercept.
Backdoor means something else entirely.
You have your definition for 'backdoor', I have mine, Next.
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 04:39:45 -0600, Veena, Sridhar wrote:
I am new to System programming and have the following doubt...
I should have added that APPLY CHECK is your friend.
It is better to run APPLY CHECK than to try to make
sense of error HOLDDATA.
--
Tom Marchant
Does this mean I skip applying first two SYSMODs HAAWA10 and HAAW910
Probably not. See below.
I will apply the third SYSMOD HADLA10 but follow it up with PTF UK75991
apply.
Yes, or better is to apply UK75991 at the same time as HADLA10.
What does it mean when they say obtain your latest
This thread has very largely straightened itself out. For the record,
i.e., for the sake of anyone who reads through it in the archives:
1) parameters and subparameters are of two sorts, positional and keyword
2) many historical keyword subparameters, e.g., those of the DCB=
keyword parameter,
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:49:28 +, Pate, Gene wrote:
You have your definition for 'backdoor', I have mine, Next.
That is the root of your confusion. This thread is
about a vendor creating a backdoor according to my
definition. You are amazed at the uproar over this
because you applied your
an APF authorized program can do that. It can also create a backdoor
(my definition) that
any task in the system can walk through and get into supervisor state.
That is the objection that was raised, and it is a very different matter.
I should be smarter than to wade into this one but is it
PATH is not only under-specified in the JCL reference, it is also
over-specified.
- Is case-sensitive. Thus, /u/joe and /u/JOE and /u/Joe define three
different files.
Is not an aspect of the PATH= parameter, it is an aspect of the HFS.
Logically they could change HFS tomorrow to be
Stephen,
you wrote syslog, -- I write SYSLOG in majuscel as seen in IBM manuals
as abbrevation for system log. You did not ask for OPERLOG, hardcopy
log, operator console, master console etc (I am not sure about
permutation of minuscel and majuscel). Then, SYSLOG as described in MVS
Planning:
On 3/8/2012 6:40 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
From a non-technology point of view, we need some sort of industry agreement
on what is good behavior in an authorized program. I am thinking of something
like a standardized set of questions that a vendor could answer and have an
officer certify:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 06:48:52 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
PATH is not only under-specified in the JCL reference, it is also
over-specified.
- Is case-sensitive. Thus, /u/joe and /u/JOE and /u/Joe define three
different files.
Is not an aspect of the PATH= parameter, it is an aspect of the HFS.
Maybe found at: http://vm.marist.edu/~neale/grid.pdf
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 09:02:47 -0500, John Gilmore wrote:
2) many historical keyword subparameters, e.g., those of the DCB=
keyword parameter, have been half promoted: they continue to be usable
as subparameters, but they may now also be coded as parameters
All DCB subparameters, or only some?
On 3/8/2012 7:28 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
o Pathnames must be absolute (start with /)
This is an inconvenience I wish could be rectified. No leading slash should
default to one's home directory.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA
Duh!
The whole point of home directories.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Edward Jaffe
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 7:47 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Tips for continuing DD statement with only one
Not sure I get your drift. I am talking about the problem in the OP, not
about me, and not about preventing programs from doing X and Y but
rather about an agreement about what is legitimate and what is not, or as I
said, one person's 'the only technique that will work' [a phrase one poster
used]
On 8 March 2012 10:46, Edward Jaffe edja...@phoenixsoftware.com wrote:
On 3/8/2012 7:28 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
o Pathnames must be absolute (start with /)
This is an inconvenience I wish could be rectified. No leading slash should
default to one's home directory.
When, and on which
Gentlemen.
Does anyone have an old Bus-Tech MDL 1000/2000 laying around that you would
like to get rid of?
Jim Wangler
jim_wang...@osianainc.com
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email
And, I guess, give a JCL error if the user does not have an OMVS segment, or no
HOME directory specified in their OMVS segment. I agree this would be easier.
But can be emulated with: PATH='/u/SYSUID/file.ext' __if__ the HOME directory
is in UPPER CASE. Unfortunately, as I have UNIX set up, the
Personally, I'd say on the executing system. In any case, __something__ would
need to expand the simple file.ext to /path/to/home/file.ext. I guess
that would be either during: JCL conversion or JCL interpretation or step
execution. Now, UNIX has the concept of current working directory. I
The IBM statement of Integrity or its equivalent is a standard that all
authorized programs should conform with. See IBM statement of Integrity
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/os/zos/features/racf/zos_integrity_statement.html.
If you look at z/OS V1R12.0 MVS Authorized Assembler Services Guide:
Hey John,
You saying the working directory on Z/os unix is different than the homes?
Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com
On Mar 8, 2012, at 11:44 AM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com
wrote:
Personally, I'd say on the executing system. In any
I sent the following to the CICS LISTSERV, and someone mentioned that the
IBM-MAIN would be a better place for this type of inquiry. I did get some good
JCL examples from the CICS LISTSERV, but if someone has some past experience of
this working with specifically COBOL, that would be great.
I will give it one more shot at trying to clarify what I mean.
Witness this thread, reasonable people can disagree on what violates the
statement of integrity means. One person's reasonable or only available
technique is another person's violation.
We could use some finer granularity. We could
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Ford
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:02 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Tips for continuing DD statement with only one
parameter field
Hey John,
You saying the
Tim,
What wouldn't you want to compile and link the appropriate way ? Just curious
here and not judging...what's the reasoning ? Maybe other methods ...
Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com
On Mar 8, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Tim Zielke
This would require a recompile of pretty much the entire application which is
around 11,000 load modules. This COBOL application is written in proprietary
object oriented COBOL and each load module represents an object oriented class
(for the most part). So a recompile of the entire
On 8 March 2012 11:57, Tim Zielke tim.zie...@aonhewitt.com wrote:
Our application team would like to change just the BA4C1426 code and then
relink the change into the existing modules. So for the example below,
BA4C1976 would not be recompiled, but the binder step would be run to update
On the basis of the information provided, below, IMO, the only *SAFE*
way to make this change is to recompile the entire application. Perhaps
if you provided some additional info about BA4C1426, I might have some
additional alternatives.
Since you have go through the pain of a mass compile, I
Tony,
Yeah, I also thought. I am assuming, bad word, that the COBOL call will be
resolved correctly
Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com
On Mar 8, 2012, at 12:56 PM, Tony Harminc t...@harminc.net wrote:
On 8 March 2012 11:57, Tim Zielke
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 11:29:38 -0600, McKown, John wrote:
-Original Message-
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Ford
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:02 AM
You saying the working directory on Z/os unix is different
than the homes?
I really, really hope that was
John, thanks for the clarification. Have used z/os unix some I am not the
wizard you are..
Used fedora and rh some ..hopefully more later
Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com
On Mar 8, 2012, at 12:29 PM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com
wrote:
Charles - yes, it is somewhat ambiguous what violation of the IBM
statement of integrity means. Perhaps some Integrity Vulnerability
examples will help clarify:
1)If your authorized program while executing in PSW key 0-7 stores
into an address provided by an unauthorized caller then this
1)If your authorized program while executing in PSW key 0-7 stores
into an address provided by an unauthorized caller then this is a violation of
the IBM statement of integrity.
Sorry - I disagree with this.
It is quite OK for auth routines (eg PC-ss) to store into storage whose address
Let me try to begin at the beginning. The scheme you used to produce
the around 11,000 executables you want to modify was ill-chosen.
There was no need to recompile the source text of program BA4C1426
around 11,000 times. Compiling it just once would have been enough.
The object module
On 8 Mar 2012 09:51:54 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
This would require a recompile of pretty much the entire application which is
around 11,000 load modules. This COBOL application is written in proprietary
object oriented COBOL and each load module represents an object oriented
Rob - How about: If your authorized program while executing in PSW Key
0-7 stores into an address provided by an unauthorized caller (as long
as the store operation uses the execution PSW KEY) then this is a
violation of the IBM statement of integrity.
Ray Overby
Key Resources, Inc.
Ensuring
How about :
If your authorized program, while executing in PSW key 0-7 stores into an
address provided by an unauthorized caller without using the caller's key then
this is a violation of the IBM statement of integrity
I am sure there are other people on IBM-Main who could make this more
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:56:32 -0500, Tony Harminc wrote:
//SYSLMOD DD DSN=main.loadlib
//NEWMOD DD DSN=load.library.where.you.put.the.new.module
//SYSLIN DD *
INCLUDE NEWMOD(BA4C1426)
INCLUDE SYSLMOD(BA4C1976)
NAME BA4C1976(R)
In order for this to work correctly, an ENTRY statement
is
The scheme Tom Marchant proposes is workable, but it is
order-dependent in a way that I find disagreeable. I suggest the use
of the REPLACE statement instead. Its syntax is
| REPLACE oldsec(newsec)
See pp. 63ff of z/Os MVS Program management: User's guide and
reference, SA22-7643-10, which
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 14:01:03 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
In order for this to work correctly, an ENTRY statement
is needed:
//SYSLMOD DD DSN=main.loadlib
//NEWMOD DD DSN=load.library.where.you.put.the.new.module
//SYSLIN DD *
INCLUDE NEWMOD(BA4C1426)
INCLUDE SYSLMOD(BA4C1976)
ENTRY
Chris,
Dude I am in agreement here ...obviously somebody wants a freebie.
Describe what you want Ed. We could design it , just come up with the necessary
specs and bucks ..
Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com
On Mar 7, 2012, at 5:44 PM, Chris
zMan,
Yep sure do
Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com
On Mar 7, 2012, at 5:36 PM, zMan zedgarhoo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
That would be another way, httpd on z/os , have a cgi do the
Ed
Just in case there could be something in the MQ concept for you, first try this
redpaper (1999):
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/redp0021.html
and then, if appealing, look around the redbook site for current
implementations:
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/
Chris Mason
On Wed, 7 Mar
In 5b3c73e7-6309-4438-b9ac-9e002f989...@yahoo.com, on 03/07/2012
at 05:30 PM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com said:
There is a limitation on parms of 100 bytes if memory serves me.
The PARM keyword parameter of EXEC has a limit of 100; the PATH
keyword parameter of DD does not.
--
In 4274496589392669.wa.dropipopigmail@bama.ua.edu, on 03/07/2012
at 03:51 PM, Ed Mackmahon dropip...@gmail.com said:
I intend that the interface will logon to the mainframe and issue
some operator commands,
If you really mean *operator* commands, that conflicts with
The user which will
In
846673179e25e44cbe313a7842d7e65a0580b...@a1dal1swpes20mb.ams.acs-inc.net,
on 03/08/2012
at 04:39 AM, Veena, Sridhar sridhar.ve...@acs-inc.com said:
Does this mean I skip applying first two SYSMODs HAAWA10 and HAAW910,
I will apply the third SYSMOD HADLA10 but follow it up with PTF
UK75991
In
77142d37c0c3c34da0d7b1da7d7ca3473...@nwt-s-mbx1.rocketsoftware.com,
on 03/07/2012
at 11:36 PM, Bill Fairchild bfairch...@rocketsoftware.com said:
My real main subtle point was that we who try to give an answer need
to remember to compose our text so that it comes across as helpful;
57 matches
Mail list logo
