Mary Anne > Sorry, yes, I meant the VTAM screen. I refer to it as the USS screen, from USSTAB.
No apology is needed at all. Rather a considerable apology is due from all those who have so misused USS as so to mislead Howard Rifkind, Jim Horne and Bruno Sugliani. You and a great many people refer to what you meant with perfect accuracy as an "USS screen". More specifically the 3270 device or emulator screen presents the USS message 10 at the time the corresponding LU is activated. Unformatted System Services (USS) - as opposed to Formatted System Services (FSS) - has been a feature of VTAM since before it was a program product, in other words in the mid 70's - long before UNIX System Services - and the names by which its predecessors were known - was a twinkle in the eyes of its begetters. Because of Howard's misunderstanding, we have been reminded that the birth of "UNIX in MVS" was well over a decade later in the early 90's. If this were subject to some sort of legal process, the plagiarists would be paying hefty damages by now. To be completely honest, I have to confess that specifically USS message 10 was *not* one of the suite of original USS messages and I cannot now remember which release/version/flavour of VTAM introduced USS message 10. It may have been as late as the early 80's but would still have predated the pretender by a decade. I am grateful to you for pointing out however inadvertently what a snare the misuse of USS is. The widespread wanton use of USS when UNIX System Services is meant trapped 3 contributors before 2 contributors spotted the problem - even if one made a gross error in so doing! I see some joker insists that USS means United States Ship. This is of course nonsense when the context usually assumed for the IBM-MAIN list is z/OS - and hoping that another joker will not be jumping in to insist that any zSeries operating system is appropriate (which was the point of my "usually") - even if some tangents can take us very far from the original subject! Chris Mason On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:23:07 -0400, Mary Anne Matyaz <maryanne4...@gmail.com> wrote: >Sorry, yes, I meant the VTAM screen. I refer to it as the USS screen, from >USSTAB. >MA > >On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Howard Rifkind <ibm_m...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Interesting, I didn't think that back in '93 MVS 4.3 had a USS piece. >> >> Or was it OS390 R1 or something like that. >> >> --- On Sun, 7/19/09, Mary Anne Matyaz <maryanne4...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > From: Mary Anne Matyaz <maryanne4...@gmail.com> >> > Subject: Re: Mainframe hacking >> > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu >> > Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 10:07 PM >> > I had one once, circa 1992-1993. It >> > was at a university, which at the time >> > were notoriously open, at least as far as TCPIP and a >> > firewall. Someone got >> > the uss screen, was able to get into the production CICS, >> > and the CECI >> > command was not protected, so they were able to shut the >> > CICS down. The hack >> > came from Brazil somewhere. Bank of Brazil maybe? >> > >> > Mary Anne >> > >> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 5:47 PM, P S <zosw...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Does anyone here recall any published news articles or >> > incidents >> > > involving mainframe hacking (any flavor of VM, VSE or >> > MVS)? Do you >> > > personally know of any incidents? >> > > >> > > Or have any such been kept on the QT? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
