I agree with that ("the guest cannot be allowed to harm CP") but has that
actually been formally - or even informally - accepted by the Powers That
Be?
I ask because I still remember, as though it were yesterday, opening a
security/integrity APAR against VM back in the mid-1980's because any
class G user could knock CP down by defining a shared and a nonshared
device on the same virtual control unit, and being told that that was NOT
a security or integrity issue, and that no fix would be forthcoming.
But at least I'm not bitter about it.
Steve
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Schuh, Richard wrote:
> One of Alan's first precepts of information security and integrity is
> that the guest cannot be allowed to harm the CP. This clearly violates
> that.
>
> Regards,
> Richard Schuh
-- Steve Marak
-- sama...@gizmoworks.com
