I heartily concur. It would be nice if VM:Secure had the same capability.
Regards, Richard Schuh -----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Munson Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 7:41 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Building NonRACF CP Module COOL - what a great feature! munson Alan Altmark wrote: > On Thursday, 03/22/2007 at 08:54 EST, Sebastian Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> I've had to do this where RACF was shared with MVS systems. If the MVS >> systems went down then VM was pretty much stuffed so we then just needed > to >> IPL with the alternate CPLOAD module. Naturally no RACF was available > but >> the way VM is built its pretty much secure for the average user. In fact >> googling showed a posting from me about this: >> >> http://listserv.uark.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9711&L=ibmvm&T=0&P=34282 > > If anyone cares, you can CP SEND RACFVM SETRACF INACTIVE. This will cause > the CP-resident RACF code to begin to defer all requests back to CP, as > though RACF is not present, including LOGON. You don't have to deactivate > any classes or change any permissions. No auditing is performed. > > RACF will, however, prompt the OPERATOR for confirmation. A SETRACF > ACTIVE will start the wheels turning again and the OPERATOR will be > informed (but not prompted). > > Alan Altmark > z/VM Development > IBM Endicott >
