[Info-vax] Unexpected DECnet Phase IV functionality with possible captive account implications

[ultr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 4:57:33 PM UTC-4, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> On 2021-05-11 18:30:01 +0000, Dave Froble said: 
> 
> > Which of them allow: 
> > 
> > Open "DFE90A::[DFE]DATA.DAT" For Input as File #1% 
> > 
> > Assuming proxys are set appropriately. 
> > 
> > Please don't reply with: 
> > 
> > Open "DFE90A"DFE XXX"::[DFE]DATA.DAT" For Input as File #1% 
> > 
> > If I even remember how to do that correctly ...
> What you're doing with RMS and FAL is entirely feasible, though through 
> different means. 
> 
> MOUNT the remote system, and access it locally. With newer systems, 
> that'd usually be an SMB mount, though OpenVMS lacks modern storage 
> connections. On OpenVMS, it'd be NFS, or maybe DFS. Then aim SQLite at 
> it, etc. 
> 
> Or with newer applications, the access would be ODBC, or a message 
> queue, or—closest to what you're doing—with the database directly e.g. 
> MariaDB and the mysql -u RemoteUser -p -h 203.0.113.13 command, etc. 
> 
> This whole area—FAL, RMS, the file system itself, remote mounts, 
> database support—is dated, as compared with the other platforms many of 
> us are now working with. 
> 
> And in more general terms, I am un-fond of exposing the database 
> structures remotely whether by classic FAL and RMS or file share or 
> otherwise, as that makes modifications more difficult. Modifying an RMS 
> database when its internal structures have escaped the API layer and 
> becomes known to apps is un-fun. q.v. SYSUAF.DAT, etc. Which further 
> reduces my interest in using FAL and RMS, beyond discussions of the 
> authentication and encryption issues. And anybody still using FAL and 
> RMS and DECnet almost assuredly already knows about this difficulty. 
> 
> My preference would be to move out of RMS for storage for many 
> production apps, though that migration is less than easy for entrenched 
> configurations, and any migration necessarily incremental for many.
> > Judged for use today, yes, the original development should not be 
> > judged by today, unless a time machine was available to the developers.
> If DECnet is in use today, then it is a risk today, and can be or is 
> targeted today.
> -- 
> Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

I was told by Process Software years ago that "for a price" they could make it possible to run their TCPware Decnet Phase IV over IP connection thru an SSH tunnel.

If Process can do it why hasn't HP then or VSI now done it already?

Why is your answer one of directing users to shy away from using a great protocol and one that makes OpenVMS unique?

What happened to product enhancements?