[Info-vax] "Trusted" detached processes

[IanMiller]

On 12 Sep, 12:46, "Richard Maher" <maher... at hotspamnotmail.com> wrote:
> 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?


Amongst the usual ranting I think there is a technical question - "Is
there some disadvantage to using PRC$M_TCB that Richard does not know
about?"
Is that it?