Tx Timothy. Will give it a try.
ITschak
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:27 AM Timothy Sipples wrote:
> ITschak wrote:
> >mac brew doesn't recognize this package -(
>
> OK, but you're not required to build the "IBM 3270" font from source
> specifically on macOS. There's also a download link to the
ITschak wrote:
>mac brew doesn't recognize this package -(
OK, but you're not required to build the "IBM 3270" font from source
specifically on macOS. There's also a download link to the prebuilt font
files (.ttf, .otf), and you should find they're suitable for immediate use
on macOS. Just place
there are so many other alternatives to ddos by wide user revoke. even if
you do not install the ptf, the attacker can use the pcomm (or whatsoever
is in use) API to perform same type of attack.
ITschak
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 6:32 PM Seymour J Metz wrote:
> That opens the way to a denial of
We are using Ken's Visara VTL solution and are very happy with it.
Tony Thigpen
Ken Bloom wrote on 1/21/20 3:10 PM:
Hi Dean
VTS solutions are not as expensive as you think they are depending on the
amount of storage and number of channels required. Besides the vastly improved
performance
Neal,
We use this "grid" type VTL solution here at A - one locally in Texas, and
the other at our DR co-lo in MD. Work well, as long as your internet connection
is sound.
Regards,
James Lund | Chief Systems Engineer
Mainframe and Enterprise Backup Service | Division of Information Technology
Hi Dean
VTS solutions are not as expensive as you think they are depending on the
amount of storage and number of channels required. Besides the vastly improved
performance of a VTS over std tape, you get the additional reduction in
footprint and power requirements which have the secondary
We have a 3592-E07 and our leasing company is telling us the following. Anyone
have any thoughts? We really don’t have the funding for a mirrored VTS and if
it’s not mirrored then we lose our DR plan.
From leasing company.
The first item to be withdrawn from service will be the 3592-C07 at the
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 10:40:07 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
>I do not disagree. The decision to revoke is in the customer's hands. Before
>this APAR, the option to only say that the combination was invalid did not
>exist. So the APAR is 100% a good thing.
>
(some topic drift)
I suspect (novice)
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 10:40:07 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
>I do not disagree. The decision to revoke is in the customer's hands. Before
>this APAR, the option to only say that the combination was invalid did not
>exist. So the APAR is 100% a good thing.
>
If it's desirable to prevent disclosure
Chris
I remember your post so much so I am now aware making sure the SDWALSED
Is set right on a retry if the abend was whitin a BAKR
> On Jan 21, 2020, at 2:12 PM, Christopher Y. Blaicher
> wrote:
>
> A note on creating a recovery routine (ESTAE or ESTAEX). If you create an
> ESTAE
A note on creating a recovery routine (ESTAE or ESTAEX). If you create an
ESTAE in a subroutine and use BAKR/PR to get to and return from that
subroutine, the ESTAE gets deleted by PR. Another programmer wrote an
INITIALIZE subroutine where the ESTAE was created, only I was never going to
So if task B frees tasks A storage and it’s not shared I would get a B37 type
error ?
A related question if I load a program in task A task B can use it access and
invoke it
And even use it as a ( recovery routine just trying to figure out why recovery
routine didn’t work )
Thanks
> On
I believe that you have a misunderstanding of what "shared subpools" are.
Any task in an address space has addressability to private storage of any
other task. Nothing special is required for this.
A "shared subpool" is one where those sharing the subpool can directly
allocate and free the
I do not disagree. The decision to revoke is in the customer's hands. Before
this APAR, the option to only say that the combination was invalid did not
exist. So the APAR is 100% a good thing.
Yes, I would certainly agree that a delay option might be superior in many
cases to revocation. A
There are two separate issues:
1. Should you only say that the userid/password combinations is bad? I have no
problem with that.
2. Should you auto-revoke after n failed attempts? That's the vector for the
DOS attack.
IMHO it makes more sense to introduce an exponential delay, block the IP
It's true. And there are various sources that will give the bad guy one or
more candidate userid's -- with any luck a senior sysprog id -- for a given
site. Think of the IBMMAIN archives, for example. Or sites where the user
guide is available online. And with one ID it is not hard to bootstrap to
Thanks so much I was able to display the address under TEST using mark Zelden
Rexmem exec ok let me re-look
Thanks
> On Jan 21, 2020, at 11:34 AM, Rob Scott wrote:
>
> Unlikely that TTOKEN is the cause (unless the task that issued IARV64 has
> terminated).
>
> More likely that you have
+1
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:58 Steve Smith wrote:
> My favorite by far is Lucida Console for terminal screens and text editing;
> except for Vista TN3270, where I just use its built-in bit-mapped fonts
> (which are good too).
>
> Also, -1 for Courier :-)
>
> sas
>
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at
Unlikely that TTOKEN is the cause (unless the task that issued IARV64 has
terminated).
More likely that you have bad address somewhere in your code/logic.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Joseph Reichman
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 3:47 PM
To:
That opens the way to a denial of service attack; someone can write a script to
cause revocation of a long list of userids.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Barbara Nitz
Sent:
Sorry, IRRDUB00 is not sufficient. It's the first step used by a REXX program
named DBSYNC. You'll need to download it and use IRRDUB00's output from your
current RACF database as the "old file" (INDD1) and a dummy file as the "new
file" (INDD2) as input to DBSYNC. It's DBSYNC that generates
My favorite by far is Lucida Console for terminal screens and text editing;
except for Vista TN3270, where I just use its built-in bit-mapped fonts
(which are good too).
Also, -1 for Courier :-)
sas
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 8:28 PM Jesse 1 Robinson <
I got a soc4 pic 11 in a subtask
I didn’t use the TTOKEN parameter
Let me look again
Thanks
> On Jan 21, 2020, at 10:42 AM, Rob Scott wrote:
>
> You do not need REQUEST=GETSHARED.
>
> IARV64 REQUEST=GETSTOR will suffice as the concept of "subpool" does not
> apply to 64-bit
You do not need REQUEST=GETSHARED.
IARV64 REQUEST=GETSTOR will suffice as the concept of "subpool" does not apply
to 64-bit memory objects.
The memory can be used by any task with the same address space as long as the
owning task (see TTOKEN) is still active AND the REQ=DETACH has not been
Under to 2GB bar the attach has a parameter SHSPV parameter to share storage
or subpool with another task in the same address space
Above the 2GB I am assuming I would need to do a GETSHARED request ?
--
For IBM-MAIN
It's might be a bit excessive, but if you have RACF administrator authority,
and an editor that will edit what might be a very large file, you could run
IRRDBU00 and create a sequential file containing definitions of pretty much
everything in your database except certificates and passwords.
Hi Sam,
Just got you message. The problem was fixed but this morning it came back.
I’ll check with IBM and get back to you later today. Thanks for all your help.
Dean Nai
Senior z/OS Systems Programmer
Technical Services Group
Department of Information Technology
State of New
27 matches
Mail list logo
