Re: remote support questions - curiousity

On 12 Nov 2006 18:14:20 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >> much snipped > >These were just some thoughts as I sit here waiting for an IPL to >install new maintenance. I must "do my magic" after the production >system (we only have one) is down. I'm using our "sandbox" to "do the >magic"

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

In a message dated 11/16/2006 6:32:59 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, it sounds like Hollywood S-F movie. Very unlikely to happen. How likely is that hackers will want to break your well-protected home access solution ? >> IIRC that was how they were able to

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

Greg Smith wrote: Ed Finnell wrote: In a message dated 11/13/2006 10:44:35 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: windows PC than os/2 was. I find it at last practical to use from home, especially to logon to the SE's . so do the hackers We have an interesting

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

Ed Finnell wrote: In a message dated 11/13/2006 10:44:35 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: windows PC than os/2 was. I find it at last practical to use from home, especially to logon to the SE's . so do the hackers We have an interesting setup here. At ho

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

>But it is bad for software developers to believe even slightly that hacking >can't happen to us. I can see denial of service (DOS) attacks being successful. But, I've never heard of one aimed at z/OS, or predessors. But, the memory protection scheme will stop most of the others. Also, with an

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main as well. the other viewpoint was that the software was designed as dedicated, disconnected tabletop operation ... and allowed numerous applications (games, etc) to take over the whole machine. a l

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Howard Brazee > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 1:47 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: remote support questions - curiousity > > > On 13 Nov

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:47:02 -0700, Howard Brazee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 13 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom >Marchant) wrote: > >>Just as an example, why did Microsoft think it was a good idea >>that a document should contain executable code? Why would I want >>to run arbi

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

On 13 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Marchant) wrote: >Just as an example, why did Microsoft think it was a good idea >that a document should contain executable code? Why would I want >to run arbitrary code that you might include in a document that >you send me? Oh, it made lot

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

On 13 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Marchant) wrote: >>The biggest advantage to both the home consumer and to the hackers is >>that Windows is so popular - including most people who don't have safe >>computing practices. > >That's what Microsoft would have you believe. It sounds

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:18:35 -0700, Howard Brazee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 13 Nov 2006 09:20:43 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>windows PC than os/2 was. I find it at last practical to use from home, >>especially to logon to the SE's . >> >> >> >>so do the hackers > >The bigge

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

I believe our system is well protected with VPN and terminal services etc. I suppose if a hacker saw os2 it would make them give up Crispin Hugo Systems Programmer, Macro 4 Macro 4 plc, The Orangery, Turners Hill Road, Worth, Crawley, RH10 4SS Direct Line: +44 (0)1293 8721

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

On 13 Nov 2006 09:20:43 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >windows PC than os/2 was. I find it at last practical to use from home, >especially to logon to the SE's . > > > >>> >so do the hackers The biggest advantage to both the home consumer and to the hackers is that Windows is so popular -

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

In a message dated 11/13/2006 10:44:35 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: windows PC than os/2 was. I find it at last practical to use from home, especially to logon to the SE's . >> so do the hackers

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

It may not look so nice but I consider it much better for remote access from a windows PC than os/2 was. I find it at last practical to use from home, especially to logon to the SE's . Crispin Hugo Systems Programmer, Macro 4 http://www.macro4.com/ Macro 4 plc, The Orangery, Turners Hill Road,

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

Alan Altmark wrote: On Monday, 11/13/2006 at 05:07 CET, "R.S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's Linux based, but I doubt you will like it. The operating system (formally IBM claims it's "closed system" - you cannot have even command line) is one animal, but the HMC application is another. It wo

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

On Monday, 11/13/2006 at 05:07 CET, "R.S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's Linux based, but I doubt you will like it. > The operating system (formally IBM claims it's "closed system" - you > cannot have even command line) is one animal, but the HMC application is > another. It works almost the s

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

McKown, John wrote: -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 11:09 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: remote support questions - curiousity On Sunday, 11/12/2006 at 09:33 CST

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

No, it is Linux based. Bill Choate Emory University AAIT -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:33 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: remote support questions - curiousity

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark > Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 11:09 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: remote support questions - curiousity > > > On Sunday, 11/12

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

On Sunday, 11/12/2006 at 09:33 CST, "McKown, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, the HMC on the zSeries is still OS/2. I hate to be a party-pooper, but the current HMC 2.9 is not based on OS/2! Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott --

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

On 12 Nov 2006 18:14:20 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main (Message-ID:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (McKown, John) wrote: This is basically for my curiousity. It isn't going to happen here anytime at all. But I am wondering how the people who do it, do remote sysprogging? Short

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Len Rugen > Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 9:28 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: remote support questions - curiousity > > > Is OS/2 still the H

Re: remote support questions - curiousity

Is OS/2 still the HMC OS? It is on our system, but it's 3-4 years old. That's my biggest problem with any remote support, I've forgot alot about using "half OS". I'm only a mile or so away, and I still go to the hardware when I do a CPAC install. Once I get a new OS level customized, I rarely go

remote support questions - curiousity

This is basically for my curiousity. It isn't going to happen here anytime at all. But I am wondering how the people who do it, do remote sysprogging? Not the normal day-to-day type stuff. I mean things such as: A problem at IPL. Either the IPL fails or some "problem" (usually ill defined) occurs.