Carol describes scenarios where the configuration options aren’t optimal, but a choice must be made.
By the time you read this, the election in the United States will be over. Many in the States view this election as having to choose between the lesser of two evils. While I’m not going to discuss the way I voted, I thought I might discuss some similar situations—where I’ve been presented with two IBM i configurations to choose from, and neither is optimal.
QSECURITY = 20 or All Profiles Are Assigned *ALLOBJ Special Authority at QSECURITY Level 40
By default, when a new profile is created at security level 20, it’s assigned *ALLOBJ special authority. So in both cases, all profiles have *ALLOBJ. In this scenario, I would prefer to have a system running at QSECURITY = 40 and all profiles assigned *ALLOBJ special authority on purpose. The reason is because of the operating system and data integrity afforded when the system runs at security levels 40 or 50. Even if my data is exposed to inappropriate modification or deletion because all users have all authority to every application object, at least the operating system can’t be inappropriately accessed or modified. And, at security level 40 or 50, data can be accessed only via an API or a command, so you know that all access is audited.
Granting Developers *ALLOBJ or *ALL Authority to Production Data
I know, I know. Developers are not supposed to have access to production systems. But I can count on one or perhaps two hands how often I’ve actually seen that to be the case. However, many organizations do limit what access developers have to production data. There’s a variety of ways organizations limit that access. Sometimes profiles are set to status of *DISABLED until access is required; sometimes developers have one profile that allows read-only access and another with access that has update authority that is supposed to be used only when data is to be modified; and other organizations use a tool that will allow elevation of authority. Regardless of the method used, when developers require access to production to modify production data, what authority should they have—*ALLOBJ special authority or *ALL to production data? My preference is to give them *ALL authority to production data. With *ALLOBJ, they have all authority to all objects on the system and you cannot block their access. With *ALL authority, it’s limited to application objects. There are a couple of ways to grant them *ALL authority. You can either grant them *ALL authority to an authorization list securing the application data or add them to the group that owns the application. Either method limits the developers’ elevated access and doesn’t automatically give them all authority to everything on the systems.
QCRTAUT = *ALL or *ALLOBJ Special Authority
The QCRTAUT system value defines the *PUBLIC authority settings when most objects are created. You can override this value when you create the object or in the library description where the object is being created. But if you do nothing, most objects will be created with *PUBLIC *ALL. Let’s look at this scenario. When you create or change a profile to have *ALLOBJ special authority, the effect is virtually immediate. The next time the user signs onto the system, they have all authority to every object on the system. Contrast that with changing QCRTAUT from the default of *CHANGE to *ALL. That change has no effect on existing objects. For example, if the *PUBLIC authority setting of your employee master database is *EXCLUDE, it will remain *EXCLUDE. In addition, even after an object is created as *PUBLIC(*ALL), it can be changed. When *ALLOBJ is assigned to a user profile, you cannot prevent users from accessing objects. That’s because *ALLOBJ is the first thing that’s checked when the system runs its authority-checking algorithm. So if you haven’t guessed, my preference would be to have QCRTAUT set to *ALL rather than all users configured with *ALLOBJ special authority.
Auditing Not Configured or No Audit Journal Receivers on the System
When the QAUDCTL system value is *NONE, auditing is not active. However, auditing may be active and you may be logging every action possible, but if you keep only the current journal receiver on the system, it’s not much better than having no auditing active, especially on a busy system. That said, I would still take auditing configured and active rather than not configured. In this situation, I would try to convince the organization to keep, at the bare minimum, 24 hours of information on the system. Better would be to keep three days of information so that if an event occurs on a Friday that needs investigation, you’d have those receivers on the system. But even if you can’t keep any receivers other than the current one, as long as you’re saving the receivers prior to deletion, you’ve got the information available should you need it to perform forensics.
QMAXSIGN Set to *NOMAX or QPWDEXPITV Set to *NOMAX
QMAXSIGN controls how many times an organization allows users to guess their password before some action is taken (the profile and/or the device is disabled). The QPWDEXPITV system value determines how often a user’s password must be changed. Setting QMAXSIGN to *NOMAX means that users can try indefinitely to come up with the right password. That may not be such a big deal when it’s a legitimate user, but think about the ramifications when the person attempting to sign on is a hacker or someone inside your organization who is trying to gain access with a more powerful profile (such as QSECOFR) or sign on with your CEO’s profile and do harm? When QPWDEXPITV is set to *NOMAX, users are never required to change their password. Assuming no one ever guesses someone else’s password and no malware has been installed somewhere in your network to sniff cleartext user ids and passwords, this is not as dangerous as giving users an unlimited number of attempts to come up with a correct user id-password combination.
Keep Inactive Profiles on the System or Suffer Application Issues
On more than one occasion, I’ve seen application issues arise when deleting inactive profiles. In one situation, a web application was written to look for the presence of a user profile. The application never used the profile for authentication or to run a job. But if the profile wasn’t present, the user couldn’t sign on to the web app. (Don’t get me started on how bad this design is. That discussion must wait for another article!) In another situation, when running a historical report of transactions that occurred within the application, the profile’s text description was pulled out of the profile in real time. If the profile no longer existed when the report was run, the log report wouldn’t format correctly and didn’t include the profile name. Again, the insanity of that design will have to be discussed another time. In the other scenario, leaving inactive profiles on a system is an unnecessary risk. If the profile remains enabled, someone can attempt to guess the password and will be on using a profile that is likely not audited and not expected to perform actions and may have additional capabilities beyond their own. Even if the profile’s disabled, I have seen numerous occasions when all profiles on the system were re-enabled (especially during a role-swap.) In addition, leaving inactive profiles on the system causes your Save Security Data (SAVSECDTA) process to run longer. And worse, if you have to perform a restore of your system, the Restore User Profile (RSTUSRPRF) command will have to put back all of those unused profiles. That said, if an application doesn’t work properly, what choice do you have? If you are forced to leave inactive profiles on the system, I recommend that you do more than set the profile to be status of disabled. Consider also setting the following attributes:
- PASSWORD(*NONE)
- INLPGM(*NONE)
- INLMNU(*SIGNOFF)
- ATNPGM(*NONE)
- SPCAUT(*NONE)
- GRPPRF(*NONE)
- LMTCPB(*YES)
- PWDEXPITV(*SYSVAL)
- MAXSTG(0)
- STATUS(*DISABLED)
These settings take all opportunities to make sure the profile cannot be used.
The Best of the Worst
None of these scenarios are good, but I hope that you’ve enjoyed the discussion of how I chose the “lesser of two evils” when it comes to various IBM security scenarios.
Carol Woodbury is IBM i Security SME and Senior Advisor to Kisco Systems, a firm focused on providing IBM i security solutions. Carol has over 30 years’ experience with IBM i security, starting her career as Security Team Leader and Chief Engineering Manager for iSeries Security at IBM in Rochester, MN. Since leaving IBM, she has co-founded two companies: SkyView Partners and DXR Security. Her practical experience and her intimate knowledge of the system combine for a unique viewpoint and experience level that cannot be matched.
Carol is known worldwide as an author and award-winning speaker on security technology, specializing in IBM i security topics. She has written seven books on IBM i security, including her two current books, IBM i Security Administration and Compliance, 3rd Edition and Mastering IBM i Security, A Modern, Step-by-Step Approach. Carol has been named an IBM Champion since 2018 and holds her CISSP and CRISC security certifications.
MC Press books written by Carol Woodbury available now on the MC Press Bookstore.
 |
||
 |
|
IBM i Security Administration and Compliance: Third Edition Don't miss the newest edition by the industry’s #1 IBM i security expert. List Price $71.95 Now On Sale
|
 |
|
Mastering IBM i Security Get the must-have guide by the industry’s #1 security authority. List Price $49.95 Now On Sale
|
More than ever, there is a demand for IT to deliver innovation. Your IBM i has been an essential part of your business operations for years. However, your organization may struggle to maintain the current system and implement new projects. The thousands of customers we've worked with and surveyed state that expectations regarding the digital footprint and vision of the company are not aligned with the current IT environment.
TRY the one package that solves all your document design and printing challenges on all your platforms. Produce bar code labels, electronic forms, ad hoc reports, and RFID tags – without programming! MarkMagic is the only document design and print solution that combines report writing, WYSIWYG label and forms design, and conditional printing in one integrated product. Make sure your data survives when catastrophe hits. Request your trial now! Request Now.
Forms of ransomware has been around for over 30 years, and with more and more organizations suffering attacks each year, it continues to endure. What has made ransomware such a durable threat and what is the best way to combat it? In order to prevent ransomware, organizations must first understand how it works.
Disaster protection is vital to every business. Yet, it often consists of patched together procedures that are prone to error. From automatic backups to data encryption to media management, Robot automates the routine (yet often complex) tasks of iSeries backup and recovery, saving you time and money and making the process safer and more reliable. Automate your backups with the Robot Backup and Recovery Solution. Key features include:
Business users want new applications now. Market and regulatory pressures require faster application updates and delivery into production. Your IBM i developers may be approaching retirement, and you see no sure way to fill their positions with experienced developers. In addition, you may be caught between maintaining your existing applications and the uncertainty of moving to something new.
IT managers hoping to find new IBM i talent are discovering that the pool of experienced RPG programmers and operators or administrators with intimate knowledge of the operating system and the applications that run on it is small. This begs the question: How will you manage the platform that supports such a big part of your business? This guide offers strategies and software suggestions to help you plan IT staffing and resources and smooth the transition after your AS/400 talent retires. Read on to learn:
LATEST COMMENTS
MC Press Online