[Info-vax] "Trusted" detached processes

[Richard Maher]

Hi,

For many years now Tier3 has been using the PRC$M_TCB when $CREPRCing our
detached Communication Server processes, and everything is just peachy. In
the UAF, we happily update/maintain the last non-interactive login time and
the number of login failures since last successful login, and all the while
$SETUAI et al is happy to leave the auditing to us.

Some of the main benefits of this approach are: -
1) Security - The user and/or System Manager is able to accurately identify
when someone last logged into this account and also if there've been any
failure attempts since last successful login.
2) Dormant account clean-up - Accounts that are used solely as server
accounts and will never be logged into interactively, don't get incorrectly
disabled for being "dormant".
3) No ridiculous stream of "UAF modification" audit messages clog up the
console and audit logs.
4) We get to structure audit messages and content to best suite the
environment

So what's the problem? Well for many years (even longer than the resistance
of intrusion detection) Rdb resisted the benefits of (1) above, but finally
caved in to the demands of System-Managers/DBAs who were sick of having to
re-enable their ODBC server accounts that were falsely targeted for being
dormant (2). But they chose not to deploy the /TRUSTED qualifier and
therefore did not obtain benefit (3). The really odd thing here is that,
when faced with the backlash from SMs and DBAs about a now cluttered and
unusable console log, they chose not to simply flip a bit when creating a
server process but rather to deploy some half-arsed logical name that will
prevent UAF updates until a given interval has elapsed :-(

Given that the people involved with the Rdb fudge were fully aware of the
possibilities of PRC$M_TCB, I'm left wondering if there is something
intrinsically flawed with this approach or if it's simply a case of the
people who made the decisions being a bunch of recalcitrant numpties - any
thoughts?

Regards Richard Maher

PS. I don't think "login failures since last successful login" has ever been
on the Rdb radar.

PPS. Can't remember what ACMS does - anybody?