John von Neumann, call your office. On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 5:41 PM Seymour J Metz <sme...@gmu.edu> wrote:
> Programs are data. > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי > נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר > > ________________________________________ > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf > of Radoslaw Skorupka <00000471ebeac275-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> > Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2024 12:06 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Technical Reason? - Why you can't encrypt load libraries > (PDSE format)? > > I can imagine technical reason to not encrypt such libraries. > However encryption is a kind of data protection. Data. Not programs. > > > -- > Radoslaw Skorupka > Lodz, Poland > > > > > W dniu 13.01.2024 o 17:28, Steve Estle pisze: > > Everyone, > > > > Our team is knee deep into pervasive encryption rollout on ZOS 2.5 and > despite the fact such functionality has been out for years by IBM to do > this, it is quite surprising how many software vendors when you contact > them they have no clue what you're talking about - that is a complete aside > - I'm not going to name vendors here but if you want some examples you can > contact me offline. > > > > My true reason for composing this is that we've discovered the inability > to encrypt load libraries - even in PDSE format. I've yet to get a > straight answer from IBM on why this is?... Is this a "giant" technical > hurdle for IBM? Or is it just cause there hasn't been anyone who raised > the need yet? If the latter does this capability interest others here if I > were to raise as an IBM idea - would you vote for it? > > > > I know this seems innocuous, but we'd like to encrypt as much as > possible in our environment and due to Top Secret deficiencies we have to > encrypt at high level qualifier level (HLQ) (all or nothing under each HLQ > unfortunately). Given we have load module libraries under many differ > HLQ's this is posing difficulties in moving forward with our rollout when > an HLQ does have one or more load module libraries as part of that HLQ. > You can only imagine the pain of renaming a load library given all the JCL, > etc that is referencing that library name. > > > > Also, while encrypting load module libraries might seem a little far > fetched, there are of course many malicious viruses that have been launched > by injecting code into a suspecting piece of code. > > > > So two questions: > > > > 1. Why has IBM not already provided such functionality - can anyone > speak to the technical hurdles to provide? > > 2. If I were to submit an IBM idea, can I count on this community for > some backing here to help in upvoting such an idea submission? > > > > Thanks for your indulgence, > > > > Steve Estle > > sest...@gmail.com > > Peraton systems programmer > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- Jay Maynard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN