an informal survey on the use of "SEPARATE_SECURITY"

Larry Kirkpatrick

an informal survey on the use of "SEPARATE_SECURITY"

We do not use "SEPARATE_SECURITY=YES" right now.  So far, our auditors have noted that we have sufficient measures in place.  So, they have not asked us to turn this on.

But, I note that using this option would not be easy to go to.  So, as an informal survey, I am wondering what various shops out there are using for this option (if many of you could respond to this, whether it be yes or no).  If you have made the transition, how did it go?  What are some of the things you did to make the transition go smoothly?

Larry

Edited By:
Larry Kirkpatrick[Organization Members] @ Jan 05, 2017 - 04:04 PM (America/Eastern)

Philip Sevetson

an informal survey on the use of "SEPARATE_SECURITY"
(in response to Larry Kirkpatrick)
We’ve just kept on using ACF2 secondary authids for our role-based security. Security people can connect and disconnect from those groups at will.

From: Larry Kirkpatrick [mailto:[login to unmask email]
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 4:03 PM
To: [login to unmask email]
Subject: [DB2-L] - an informal survey on the use of "SEPARATE_SECURITY"


We do not use "SEPARATE_SECURITY=YES" right now. So far, our auditors have noted that we have sufficient measures in place. So, they have not asked us to turn this on.

But, I note that using this option would not be easy to go to. So, as an informal survey, I am wondering what various shops out there are using for this option (if many of you could respond to this, whether it be yes or no). If you have made the transition, how did it go? What are some of things you did to make the transition go smoothly?

Larry

-----End Original Message-----

Walter Janißen

AW: an informal survey on the use of "SEPARATE_SECURITY"
(in response to Larry Kirkpatrick)
Hi Larry

We don’t use separate security and there no plans to go to it.

Kind regards
Walter Janißen [standard_IBM+Champ+7+Yr+Analytics]

ITERGO Informationstechnologie GmbH
Anwendungsentwicklung
Technische Anwendungsarchitektur
Victoriaplatz 2
D-40198 Düsseldorf
[login to unmask email]<mailto:[login to unmask email]>

ITERGO Informationstechnologie GmbH
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Christian Diedrich
Geschäftsführung: Dr. Bettina Anders (Vorsitzende),
Lothar Engelke, Ina Kirchhof, Dr. Michael Regauer
Sitz: Düsseldorf, Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Düsseldorf HRB 37996

Von: Larry Kirkpatrick [mailto:[login to unmask email]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2017 22:03
An: [login to unmask email]
Betreff: [DB2-L] - an informal survey on the use of "SEPARATE_SECURITY"


We do not use "SEPARATE_SECURITY=YES" right now. So far, our auditors have noted that we have sufficient measures in place. So, they have not asked us to turn this on.

But, I note that using this option would not be easy to go to. So, as an informal survey, I am wondering what various shops out there are using for this option (if many of you could respond to this, whether it be yes or no). If you have made the transition, how did it go? What are some of things you did to make the transition go smoothly?

Larry

-----End Original Message-----
Attachments

  • image001.png (2.6k)

Russell Peters

RE: an informal survey on the use of "SEPARATE_SECURITY"
(in response to Larry Kirkpatrick)

We have it set to NO and use RACF exclusively for authorization checking.