RE: Security Code

["James H H Lampert" <jamesl@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Hopefully, this doesn't occur often, if ever, on production boxes.
> Maybe some would go through the trouble on developer/test boxes.
. . .
> . . .  If one is trying to market software, sales can be
> lost if you force QSECOFR signon to install.

We've seen it happen, ourselves. And as to requiring QSECOFR or
equivalent, and even requiring a fairly permissive setting of QALWOBJRST,
well, having a good reputation, that goes back all the way to the AS/400's
infancy, can open a lot of doors. As can, as appears to be true in the
case at hand, having an already-established relationship between vendor
and customer.

And as to "muddy pawprints," well, it's a matter of hiding them in places
where anybody doing a lot of poking around, trying to find them, could
really screw up the system. Where trial-and-error carries a stiff penalty
for error. I could tell you more, but (as the old classified information
joke goes) then I'd have to kill you. Yes, it's security-by-obscurity, but
uffice it to say that, where and when they're used, it's a matter of
making the work of a chiseler more trouble than it's worth.

--
JHHL