Re: Dumb adopted authority question

[Evan Harris <spanner@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi David

I gather from what you have said that the profile running the job does not 
have *USE authority to the SECOFR-like profile and instead you are relying 
on adopted authority to supply that authority when you need to make the switch.

If the message is indeed that the program is failing because the profile 
running the job does not have authority to QSECOFR then this may be one of 
those cases where adopted authority will not supply the requires authority 
and explicit authority is required to perform the authority.

Is the authority of the alternative *SECOFR profile obtained by having 
QSECOFR as a group profile ? If the authority is derived in this way then 
preventing the swap would not surprise me.

Just another option to explore.

Regards
Evan Harris


> Folks:
>
> If I am signed on as QSECOFR, and run a program (ILE CL) that is owned by 
> a normal user and has USRPRF(*OWNER), what is the programs effective 
> authority?  QSECOFR or the users?
>
> I've got a program that is being run as QSECOFR, but the USRPRF value is 
> that of a normal user ... the program is failing when it's trying to 
> switch profile handles to another *SECOFR profile because it does not have 
> *USE authority to QSECOFR.
>
> Thanks!
>
> david
> --
> David Gibbs
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxx