Actually, I would rather have some mechanism that would prevent the starter system from being used in production. That has actually been the source of a fair number of problems reported on this list.
Regards, Richard Schuh -----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Boyes Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 9:23 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Initial User Directory ( was: hacking vm/cms (probably old news)) > Isn't that a bit of an overkill for a starter system?? Not really. If you start with a fairly buttoned-up system, you know exactly what holes you open because you do it deliberately (and it's completely your fault if you screw it up). What Tom's described is a pretty tight system, and it's not a bad default if you have few or no CMS users. The question we're really answering in this discussion: In this day and age, is there really any reason/excuse to ship a system in a state that is known to be insecure? I'd argue that the answer now is "no". We used to say "start with a simple system, and make it secure". What this discussion seems to be proposing is "let's start with a secure system, and open things as necessary". Seems like a Good Thing (tm) to me.
