RE: Object authority

[CWilt@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Pete,

Nope, no holes.  Adopted authority is a great thing.

I assume that Michael was disagreeing with using QPGMR as the owner.

IBM and everybody else I've heard say to use a user profile created
specifically to be your application owner.

Charles


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Helgren [mailto:pete@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 12:09 PM
> To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
> Subject: RE: Object authority
> 
> 
> Actually, I think this is a great approach and until I see 
> some gaping hole
> in my logic, we'll continue to use it.  I don't know if there is an
> equivalent in the Windows and Linux world, but when I finally 
> discovered
> this as part of OS/400 security I was relieved.  It is very easy to
> implement.
> 
> We don't use QPGMR, we create a specific User Profile, but 
> all programs are
> compiled USRPRF(*OWNER) and the files and objects are owned 
> by this profile.
> 
> The beauty is (as mentioned before) that users sign on to the 
> iSeries and
> get a menu driven system that allows them to run any program 
> because they
> *are* the owner as far as the iSeries is concerned.  If they 
> exit the menu
> system (Sys Attn or whatever), they revert back to their own 
> user profile
> which in some cases can do nothing.  This seems to be a 
> fairly rational and
> easy approach to managing security.
> 
> Or, perhaps I missed something.
> 
> Pete Helgren
> Value Added Software,Inc.
> 801.581.1154
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Rooney, Michael P
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:09 AM
> To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
> Subject: RE: Object authority
> 
> 
> 
> If your shop only has 1 user this works well.  Better yet, why not
> run as QSECOFR?
> 
> Otherwise, I vote to stay as far away from this approach as possible.
>