RE: Ignore *SYSTEM state of objects?? Search 400 article.

["Ingvaldson, Scott" <SIngvaldson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Absolutely you should be careful doing something like this, but there's no
reason why you shouldn't if you have a business need to do it.  It would
appear that this will make the modified program ignore the SECLVL 40 rules
so it probably wouldn't pass a security audit (but who could find it?)  I am
sure that IBM would also tell you that this is 'unsupported.'  Techniques
like this can also be used to vary off devices that will not vary off
normally, or damage objects that cannot be deleted for some reason.  

Of course you have to be able to follow simple instructions or you could dig
yourself a very deep hole....

Regards,

Scott Ingvaldson
AS/400 System Administrator
GuideOne Insurance Group

-----Original Message-----
date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:15:10 -0400 
from: CWilt@xxxxxxxxxxxx
subject: Ignore *SYSTEM state of objects?? Search 400 article.

Is it just me, or does this strike anybody else as being "wrong".  That that
it can't be done, but that it shouldn't.

http://search400.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid3_gci958399,00.html?track=NL
-177&ad=479700

Anybody with more experience in this area care to comment?

Thanks,
Charles
   
This message and accompanying documents are covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and contains information
intended for the specified individual(s) only. This information is
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible
for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination,
copying, or the taking of any action based on the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original
message.