Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Checksum or hashing

A genius, gentleman, and a scholar. Thank you so much! – Vignesh Mainframe Infrastructure -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Dyck, Lionel B. (RavenTek) Sent: 20 November 2018 16:30 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Checksum or

Re: Checksum or hashing

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 22:06:10 -0500, Phil Smith III wrote: > >FSVO "not secure". If you're just creating a fingerprint to detect accidental >damage, it's surely good enough. If you're protecting >your bank account, maybe not so much. Given that the original request was "to >compare these hashes

Re: Checksum or hashing

CM Poncelet wrote: >FWIW SHA1 hashing is *not* secure: you should use SHA2. No idea whether >there is a z/OS utility to do that: I use PGP. HTH. FSVO "not secure". If you're just creating a fingerprint to detect accidental damage, it's surely good enough. If you're protecting your bank

Re: Checksum or hashing

FWIW SHA1 hashing is *not* secure: you should use SHA2.  No idea whether there is a z/OS utility to do that: I use PGP. HTH.   Chris Poncelet (retired sysprog) On 20/11/2018 13:36, Sankaranarayanan, Vignesh wrote: > Hello again List! > > Is there any utility for z/OS that lets us create SHA1 or

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 23:19:09 +, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: >I don't happen to know of any language whose orthography has complex >upper-lower case correlations, but it's an intriguing idea. > See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_calligraphy >Meanwhile--aside from making students

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 09:30:39 +1100, Andrew Rowley wrote: >On 21/11/2018 5:26 AM, Phil Smith III wrote: >> The funny part about case sensitivity is that if you ask a *ix person why >> it’s good, they almost universally assert that it is, but cannot come up >> with a reason why, OR a case where

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

On 21/11/2018 10:19 AM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: I don't happen to know of any language whose orthography has complex upper-lower case correlations, but it's an intriguing idea. I have been searching for the reference where I read about it. This is the most general I have found:

Re: Non-IBM computers using EBCDIC was Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

We had an 1108 and an 1100 as "scientific machines". They were 36 bit words and did the 8 in 9 for EBCDIC and ASCII. I got pretty good with their FORTRAN and the advent of Data Space early on(mid 70's). I think the 7090's had an EBCDIC option for tapes, but it had an extra bit somewhere and we

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

I don't happen to know of any language whose orthography has complex upper-lower case correlations, but it's an intriguing idea. Meanwhile--aside from making students miserable with arcane spelling rules--case manipulation seems more useful for obscuring passwords than for any technical

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:07:24 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote: >>> >>Doesn't UNPK just swap nybbles of the rightmost byte >It does do that. > >>and set all other zone bits to 0 regardless of character set? >No. It never sets the zone bits to 0. >It sets the zone bits to F when in EBCDIC mode and to 5

Non-IBM computers using EBCDIC was Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

[Default] On 20 Nov 2018 10:26:36 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main li...@akphs.com (Phil Smith III) wrote: >The whole ASCII-EBCDIC thing certainly has been a huge cost—probably, as Gil >suggests, as large as the other two combined. But I’d argue that it wasn’t >necessarily either EBCDIC or

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

On 21/11/2018 5:26 AM, Phil Smith III wrote: The funny part about case sensitivity is that if you ask a *ix person why it’s good, they almost universally assert that it is, but cannot come up with a reason why, OR a case where you would deliberately mix two files or commands with the same

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 15:02:19 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:13:35 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: > >>The ASCII bit in the PSW affected only the decimal instructions, including >>UNPK. >> >Doesn't UNPK just swap nybbles of the rightmost byte It does do that. >and set all

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

I think the ASCII machines converted punched tape to ASCII. On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 3:02 PM Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:13:35 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > >The ASCII bit in the PSW affected only the decimal instructions,

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:13:35 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >The ASCII bit in the PSW affected only the decimal instructions, including >UNPK. > Doesn't UNPK just swap nybbles of the rightmost byte and set all other zone bits to 0 regardless of character set? >It did not affect how the card

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

Well, the 1050, 2740 and 2741 were not even vaguely similar to the 3277. I don't recall a Selectric golf ball that didn't have dual case. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Edward

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

Code points '20'x-'7f'x were not the only important ones. And ASCII was *not* who was "colonizing the 256-character wilderness"; that was PC software, and lots of PC users were bitten by the incompatibilities. To say nothing of users of graphics below '20'x who got bitten by software that

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

Setting EC mode did not force DAT on; that was an additional bit. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Steve Thompson Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 5:26 PM To:

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

No, the expectation was that the application would know the correct code page through some other channel. I suppose that you could do an UNPK and see what the zones were on the left side, but I don't know of any plans to do that. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

The ASCII bit in the PSW affected only the decimal instructions, including UNPK. It did not affect how the card reader read zoned numeric data. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

I had the same problem with UCS images that had the fold bit on. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Tom Brennan Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 8:46 PM To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

I call such helpful people Molly Malones, from the words She died of a faever, from which none could save her How long will it take if johns helps you? 6 months. How long will it take if John doesn't help you? 3 months. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3

Re: Region size for OMVS tasks

Where did you get all this from? Is it documented somewhere, or is it something you've 'soaked up through your fingertips' over the years? So I went back to the FMs. For any question of kind "How does that UNIX service behave regarding MVS resources, attributes, etc.", I always read what

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

I'm not convinced that case sensitivity was a mistake. On other characteristics of Eunix, I agree. Take 0-delimited strings and the C conflation of arrays and pointers - please. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM

Re: FTP tape file to another lpar

Here is the page out of the FM. Use the AUTOTAPEMOUNT statement to specify whether unmounted tapes are to be automatically allocated and mounted. Server This setting applies when accessing files on the server's system. Client This setting applies when accessing files on the client's system.

Re: FTP tape file to another lpar

You'll need to ensure that your FTP server settings on the mainframe have AUTOTAPEMOUNT enabled. _ Dave Jousma Mainframe Engineering, Assistant Vice President david.jou...@53.com 1830 East Paris, Grand Rapids, MI  49546 MD RSCB2H p

Re: FTP tape file to another lpar

That is not a VTS problem, but an FTP problem, which you should solve there. Kees. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 6:58 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FTP tape file

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 22:39:08 +, Pew, Curtis G wrote: >On Nov 19, 2018, at 4:26 PM, Steve Thompson wrote: >> >>S/360 machines I worked on had a switch in the PSW to set >>them in ASCII mode. >> > >Right. The expectation was that routines would check the bit >and generate output in the

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

The whole ASCII-EBCDIC thing certainly has been a huge cost—probably, as Gil suggests, as large as the other two combined. But I’d argue that it wasn’t necessarily either EBCDIC or ASCII’s fault, just that they evolved in parallel and neither truly “won” [insert another debate about what

IRXANCHR REXX environment value recommendation

Anyone have a good recommendation for the value of IRXANCHR on a z/OS 2.3 system? Current value is 1000, but there may be the need for more REXX environments as this value has not been increased in awhile. What's the new "happy value" everyone is using? :) There is no bad answer here. Bob

Re: FTP tape file to another lpar

I tried with FTP to send VTS dataset but the ftp connection times outs as the SMF GDG tape (virtual tape) are pretty large On Mon 19 Nov, 2018, 11:57 AM Peter Two LPARS don't share the virtual tape > > > Both the sites have there own virtual tape hardware. > > > > On Mon 19 Nov, 2018, 11:52 AM

Hillgang Presentations

The presentations from last September’s meeting are now available at https://www.sinenomine.net/publications/conference/hillgang-2018: z/VM Dynamic Memory Management - Walter Church What

Re: RESMGR exit vs. end of task

Thanks, Jim, We suspected that must be the explanation, but I wanted reassurance that we hadn't missed something. I appreciated the other comments, too. I now understand why my searches for a variety of keywords involving RESMGR, CLOSE, DCB, etc., showed many results, some of which were

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Checksum or hashing

I didn't see the original posting but if you're looking for tools to do a checksum on a z/OS data set check out file 900 on the CBTTAPE.ORG site: From the file: //***FILE 900 is a set of programs which run under either old MVS //* or z/OS to calculate MD5 checksums. Please see

Re: z/OS 2.3 Migration Story

If you are try to update the Master Catalog you don't have an alias to send those entries to a user catalog. Probably a mistake when you tried to create the new master catalog or fall back to the old catalog. On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 7:41 AM Shashi Kumar wrote: > > Hello Mates, > > I'm unable to

Re: Region size for OMVS tasks

For an LPAR, you should have enough dasd to back real memory. To take a system dump, you need to copy the memory and the paging. So you need 3X the amount of real memory. If paging on any LPAR is over 30%, you should be reducing usage or adding space. On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 6:02 AM Peter

Re: Checksum or hashing

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 09:09:00 -0500, John Eells wrote: >There is a Java class you can use (if you have Java) and an ICSF service >you can use (requires ICSF setup). > o SAMPLIB has Rexx samples that may be useful o SMP/E uses a Java interface. Turning on tracing (in the CLIENT data set, IIRC)

Re: z/OS 2.3 Migration Story

this listgroup does not support images unfortunately, but knowing you re applied the usermods helps Carmen Vitullo - Original Message - From: "Shashi Kumar" To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 8:59:13 AM Subject: Re: z/OS 2.3 Migration Story Hi Mate,

Re: z/OS 2.3 Migration Story

Hi Mate, yes, when Applied compatible fixes, I had re-applied One of userexist for TSO as well. Hope you got my error screenshot in previous email, thing is its failing only with TSO SUMMIT command coded internally, But at this moment I'm unable bypass this. Thanks On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 8:15

Re: z/OS 2.3 Migration Story

I upgraded ACF2 back in preporeation for Y2K and as I recall, when I installed toleration I had to restore and reapply my usermods, some of those usermods dealt with TSO submit exit processing and CICS signon processing, did you have to reject/restore any usermods and if so did you reapply ?

Re: z/OS 2.3 Migration Story

Point of clarification, are you migrating from zOS 2.1 with ACF2 R16 already in place, or are you migrating from ACF2 R(e.g.)15 to R16 as well? TIA Tom Sims 11/20/2018 5:41 AM, Shashi Kumar wrote: Hello Mates, I'm unable to figure out root cause of the below issues after z/OS 2.3 Migration,

Re: Checksum or hashing

There is a Java class you can use (if you have Java) and an ICSF service you can use (requires ICSF setup). Sankaranarayanan, Vignesh wrote: Hello again List! Is there any utility for z/OS that lets us create SHA1 or MD5 or some such hash/fingerprint of a dataset or USS file. The use case is

Re: z/OS 2.3 Migration Story

Can you provide the error message that was received? Masking any company specific details. When you say fails - what specifically fails? What access was needed. What access was available? Did you go through the V2.3 Migration guide to see if there were any entries that might relate to this

z/OS 2.3 Migration Story

Hello Mates, I'm unable to figure out root cause of the below issues after z/OS 2.3 Migration, as Described below 1. Once we migrated from z/OS 2.3 (With CA ACF2 V16 security product), One of the batch job got failed due to security issue with batch ID, where as a batch code with TSO SUMMIT

Checksum or hashing

Hello again List! Is there any utility for z/OS that lets us create SHA1 or MD5 or some such hash/fingerprint of a dataset or USS file. The use case is to compare these hashes at source (z/OS) and destination (linux) after transferring some sizable datasets. Thanks in advance! - Vignesh

Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK

"But ASCII had a practical path to UNICODE because ASCII, unlike EBCDIC, kept important code points static. EBCDIC made the irreparable mistake of overloading common code points rather than colonizing the 256-character wilderness as ASCII did." Back in the day, ASCII was a 7-bit code, EBCDIC

AW: Re: Region size for OMVS tasks

>Peter: I'm still trying to fully assimilate what you've said - very detailed & complete. Where did you get all this from? Is it documented somewhere, or is it something you've 'soaked up through your fingertips' over the years? I pasted one section which is one part of the „documented

Re: Region size for OMVS tasks

Thanks for the responses, gents Carmen: yes - that is what I see in the manual Jim: Thanks for the update - it would appear that the manual requires an update Peter: I'm still trying to fully assimilate what you've said - very detailed & complete. Where did you get all this from? Is it documented