LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (February 1998)Back to main CICS-L pageJoin or leave CICS-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 1998 14:48:43 -0500
Reply-To:     CICS List <CICS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Sender:       CICS List <CICS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
From:         Randy Evans <revans@VIASERV.COM>
Subject:      Re: Signon without terminal with CICS/ESA v4.1

Hi Christopher:

>I think the problem with extending EXEC CICS SIGNON is, what would you be signing on "to"? When you sign on you have to sign on "to" something.<

I'd like to be able to get the user signed on "to" a SOCKET. Seems reasonable to me that since a socket now represents a way to post work into CICS that CICS should offer some way to secure that work in a straightforward fashion. For those folks' networks where sockets are not securable to an adequate level, they can operate as before. But as more and more folks add socket applications to CICS, it would save many of us a lot of extra time and effort if IBM CICS would address this issue earlier rather than later.

I suspect a long and interesting debate could be had on the issue of securing TCP/IP networks (I sense a loud guffaw in the background). But, the question of whether a customer's network may or may not be adequately secured isn't the issue in my view. It's whether or not CICS will step up to the plate now to help those whose networks are secured to the level that meets their business needs.

Randy Evans, Viaserv, Inc

Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main CICS-L page