Application only access, was Commands for Limited Users

And it's not future science we're talking about here.  I've already been 
burned by IFS limitations with this stuff.  Profile switching is the cure.

The question I have about profile switching is what it does to 
journalling?  Does the journal record the switched to profile, the 
switched from profile, or both?

Adopting authority records the actual user.

Then again, any data queue driven update would probably record the wrong 
user profile into the journal also.

Rob Berendt
-- 
Group Dekko Services, LLC
Dept 01.073
PO Box 2000
Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com





"John Earl" <john.earl-Ua2wos9bJ7y1Z/[email protected]> 
Sent by: security400-bounces+rob=dekko.com-Zwy7GipZuJhWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
09/07/2006 01:47 PM
Please respond to
Security Administration on the AS400 / iSeries  <security400-Zwy7GipZuJhWk0Htik3J/[email protected]>


To
"Security Administration on the AS400 / iSeries" 
<security400-Zwy7GipZuJhWk0Htik3J/[email protected]>
cc

Subject
Re: [Security400] Commands for Limited Users






Edwin,

> Correct me if I am wrong, but the proper way to secure
> this object would
> be to have
> *public with *exclude, "/Serviceprofile/" with *all (or as
> needed) and
> then do a
> CHGPGM /pgmname/ USRPRF(*owner) to adopt the service
> profiles authority.
> Then do a CHGOBJOWN OBJ(/pgmname/) OBJTYPE(*PGM)
> NEWOWN(/Serviceprofile/)
> which will make the owner of the program the service
> profile.

If you accuse me of being a stickler for detail on this point, I'll
accept the charge, but I would characterize the authorization scheme you
have outlined here is an "adopted authority" scheme rather than an
"object authority" scheme.  To me an object authority scheme is one
where all users of a file are granted authority to that file either
directly, through one of their group profiles, or via an authorization
list, and an adopted authority scheme is one where no users are allowed
direct access to the data unless they go through an approved interface,
and that interface is able to provide the requisite authority to get the
job done. 

I like, and use, adopted authority schemes.  But I don't think they are
the same thing as object authority (maybe that is just my own semantic
bugaboo).  I'm also aware of the limitation that threatens their
obsolescence (the fact that adopted authority is not supported in file
systems other than QSYS.LIB).  Most of the newer web based applications
are use objects in file systems other than QSYS.LIB, so a traditional
adopted authority scheme will not be effective. 

And this is the point that leaves me confused about the whole "object
level security" promotion.  Most of the folks that I have heard promote
OLS as "the correct way" to do secure a System i, don't really mean OLS,
they mean "adopted authority".  But adopted authority has a serious
shortcoming that limits it's usefulness in the file systems that the
majority of new applications would use. 


jte





--
John Earl | Chief Technology Officer
The PowerTech Group
19426 68th Ave. S
Seattle, WA 98032
(253) 872-7788 ext. 302
john.earl-Ua2wos9bJ7y1Z/[email protected]
www.powertech.com 
Celebrating our 10th Anniversary Year!
 


_______________________________________________
This is the Security Administration on the AS400 / iSeries (Security400) mailing list
To post a message email: Security400-Zwy7GipZuJhWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/security400
or email: Security400-request-Zwy7GipZuJhWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/security400.