Just got an email Jobtrac 3.5 support extended to 3-2-2009.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at
It is real fun to send dumps to vendors who have used Key 8 CSA to store
programs
I have used Omegamon MVS classic to get a list of such storage areas
then via TASID option 7, gone to that area in storage, and then overlayed the
area with nulls ('00'x). The resulting abends are good to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU wrote on 07/14/2008
02:52:12 PM:
Indeed. Though in fairness, it must be pointed out that not every use
of user key CSA is a security or integrity exposure. Distinguishing
the many cases that are from those that are not is so difficult,
2008/7/15 Jim Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU wrote on 07/14/2008
02:52:12 PM:
Indeed. Though in fairness, it must be pointed out that not every use
of user key CSA is a security or integrity exposure. Distinguishing
the many cases that are
One could perhaps argue that a malicious user could trick some other code into
doing something it shouldn't by virtue of being able to place arbitrary data
into this piece of CSA, but that is certainly the
fault of that other code's doing a bogus validity check. That kind of checking
went out
We tried to run 3.5 on our z/OS 1.9 system. We had problems because we
have ALLOWUSERKEYCSA(NO). Jobtrac would abend. CA's official response
was to step-up to r11 on 1.9.
Ironically, with the ALLOWUSERKEYCSA parameter set to NO, Datacom had
to be setup to use a Global data space. This
This just keeps getting better and better
Thanks for the heads up.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Waldman
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:25 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CA Jobtrac 3.5 Off Support
We
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:25:06 -0500, David Waldman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We tried to run 3.5 on our z/OS 1.9 system. We had problems because we
have ALLOWUSERKEYCSA(NO). Jobtrac would abend. CA's official response
was to step-up to r11 on 1.9.
Ironically, with the ALLOWUSERKEYCSA parameter
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:03:20 -0500, Mark Zelden wrote:
While I applaud IBM for finally making this change and all the
vendors who are modifying their code for this (and Sam K. and others
for pushing the vendors), I really don't have a problem running with
ALLOWUSERKEYCSA(YES) on my systems at
Mark Zelden wrote:
While I applaud IBM for finally making this change and all the
vendors who are modifying their code for this (and Sam K. and others
for pushing the vendors), I really don't have a problem running with
ALLOWUSERKEYCSA(YES) on my systems at this point. The exposure
has been
I believe SYSB-II requires ALLOWUSERKEYCSA(NO).
Some months ago, HW sent out an email asking for guidance in setting a
priority for modifying SYSB-II to make it work with YES. I don't know
what kind of response they got, but, given the fact that there's been no
fix, it doesn't appear that their
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:38:47 -0500, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:03:20 -0500, Mark Zelden wrote:
While I applaud IBM for finally making this change and all the
vendors who are modifying their code for this (and Sam K. and others
for pushing the vendors), I
2008/7/14 Edward Jaffe [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Identifying integrity exposures is a double-edged sword. Everyone agrees
that such exposures must be identified and fixed. But, the real-world risk
posed by any such exposure is proportional to the amount of attention you
draw to it.
Well, maybe.
Product Manager
HW Computer Systems, Inc.
www.hwcs.com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Greg Shirey
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 09:39
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ALLOWUSERKEYCSA(NO) was (Re: CA Jobtrac 3.5 Off Support)
I
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
How long has user key CSA been recognized as undesirable?
At least:
MVS/ESA SP V4 Planning: Security
Edition Notice
Second Edition, March 1993
Bob
--
For
Tony Harminc wrote:
In any case, it should be obvious that the best policy, when dealing with
potentially serious integrity exposures, is secrecy.
I'd say it's far from obvious. Intelligent and informed people differ
on this topic, and there is no consensus.
Regardless of what others
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 3:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CA Jobtrac 3.5 Off Support
Sorry about the previous post -- fat fingers!
I'd rather run 3.5
Dean said:
I was told by CA that 3.5 SP7 would run fine with 1.9. We'll see we're
getting ready to start testing.
Yup. It's running fine here under 1.9.
Cheers,,,Steve
Steve Conway
Lead Systems Programmer
Information Systems Services Division
Computer Network Operations
Phone: (703)
CA-1 support is top shelf.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of McKown, John
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 8:46 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CA Jobtrac 3.5 Off Support
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe
Well, I got all of the messages about 3.5 going off support. Matter of fact
we had a planning session the first of the year and since I'm kind of the CA
guy here, my boss told me to list everything that needed upgrading, which I
did. A lot of it was CA, Librarian, TPX, CA-11, Jobtrac, etc. I ended
Hi,
I just got a 2nd letter (I don't recall getting the 1st, when was it
sent ?) stating that 3.5 is going off support 9/2008. Has anyone
migrated to R11 ? I understand there's a DB involved now. I haven't
cracked open the books yet but is the DB going to affect the overall
function of the
)
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dean Montevago
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 3:52 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: CA Jobtrac 3.5 Off Support
Hi,
I just got a 2nd letter (I don't recall getting the 1st, when was it
sent ?) stating
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
-Original Message-
From: Burrell, C. Todd (CDC/OCOO/ITSO) (CTR) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:59:03
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CA Jobtrac 3.5 Off Support
I had heard about the requirement to go to R11, so I
Sorry about the previous post -- fat fingers!
I'd rather run 3.5 unsupported than to try and install PTF's every day to fix
problems in production.
Welcome to the new CA - same as the old CA.
And, people wonder why I still complain (b*tch) about them.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
We converted to r11 at the beginning of this year. The conversion was a
challenge because of the Datacom database and RACF security setup.
We had several small problems that we were able to work-around until CA
provided fixes.
We also had a major problem that had to be fixed ASAP (i.e., Fix
: CA Jobtrac 3.5 Off Support
We converted to r11 at the beginning of this year. The conversion was a
challenge because of the Datacom database and RACF security setup.
We had several small problems that we were able to work-around until CA
provided fixes.
We also had a major problem that had
of Donnelly, John P
Sent: Thu 7/10/2008 4:28 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CA Jobtrac 3.5 Off Support
..we are working on R11 rat now...still a maintenance nightmare...anyone
running V3.5 with z/IS V1R9?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL
- Original Message -
From: Burrell, C. Todd , CDC/OCOO/ITSO, CTR [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: CA Jobtrac 3.5 Off Support
I had heard about the requirement to go to R11, so I ordered it about
8-9 months ago
28 matches
Mail list logo
