If that is the rule, then we don't need SECUSER or FOR, or when would you use them?? Just courious.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Rob van der Heij <rvdh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Martin, Terry R. (CMS/CTR) (CTR) > <terry.mar...@cms.hhs.gov> wrote: > > > HCPFOR070E – Basically it is an authorization issue with the FOR command. > We > > are running RACF here so do you know what the profile would be and what > RACF > > class would need to be activated to define and permit this resource? Can > I > > also do this via the SECUSER command? > > The SECUSER can issue these > #CP SEND CP LINUX007 DET 191 > #CP SEND CP LINUX007 LINK * 191 191 MR > > But in general I consider it abuse of power to use a privileged userid > (with FOR authorisation or as SECUSER) when the user could have done > it himself. You could also do it from Linux (use "modprobe vmcp" if > that does not happen at boot time already) > vmcp "det 191" > vmcp "link * 191 191 mr" > > Rob >
