Re: IBM i for Wintel Hackers - Silent Signal TROOPERS24 Presentation

[Yvan Janssens <friedkiwi@xxxxxxxx>]

Very much so, it's a case of using the right tool for the right job. 

You can spend only limited amounts of time on engineering, and "good enough and it works" is often the best you can hope for. At that point, it becomes an executive decision on what to do with it.

/y

On 18/09/2024, 19:52, "MIDRANGE-L on behalf of Gavin Inman" <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of midrangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:midrangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:


AGREE


--opinion - Using all available existing security tools, properly 
implemented, the demonstrated hack would be very difficult to pull off.


Gavin


On 9/18/2024 1:13 PM, mlazarus wrote:
I'm going to be a contrarian here. I think that, other than a few 
unique situations, it's not good advice to have to qualify all your 
objects. The *LIBL is a wonderful feature that is unmatched on Unix and 
Windows platforms. The path environment variable is a poor substitute.


The alternative is to have a proper authority scheme on your objects. 
Carol Woodbury, Steve Pitcher and others have given many seminars and 
webinars on how to do that.


-mark


On 9/18/2024 11:44 AM, Mark Waterbury wrote:
> Hi, Rob,
>
> Short answer -- not all of the IBM objects of concern are in QSYS, 
> QSYS2, QHLPSYS or QUSRSYS.
>
>
> Mark
>
> > On Wednesday, September 18, 2024 at 10:34:50 AM EDT, Rob 
> > Berendt<robertowenberendt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:robertowenberendt@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> If it is primarily for IBM type library objects,
> and you have system value QSYSLIBL set sanely,
> how do they get something higher in the library list?