Skip to Main Content
IBM Z Software


This portal is to open public enhancement requests against IBM Z Software products. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com).


Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Search existing ideas

Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,

Post your ideas
  1. Post an idea.

  2. Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.

  3. Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.


Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use

Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal (https://www.ibm.com/ideas) - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.

IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com) - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM.

ideasibm@us.ibm.com - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.

Status Delivered
Categories Runtime
Created by Guest
Created on Feb 18, 2014

No message issued after successful EXEC CICS VERIFY and unsuccessful attempt count was non-zero

We've recently had two PMR's (22838,7TD,000 and 43772,499,000) where customers received an excessive number of DFHXS1201 messages before a userid was revoked in RACF. On an EXEC CICS VERIFY PASSWORD call, if an invalid password is used and the DFHXS1201 message issued, RACF increases the invalid attempt count. If the number of successive invalid attempts reaches a preset limit (defaults to 3 in RACF, though one customer had it set higher) then the userid is revoked in RACF. Subsequent attempts to VERIFY a password result in DFHXS1203 messages.

However, if there is a SUCCESSFUL attempt to verify a password mixed in with the unsuccessful ones, it can appear that RACF is not working properly, and allowing too many attempts.

For example, if the limit is 3, and the following sequence of events occurs:

Unsuccessful attempt - DFHXS1201. RACF invalid attempt is now 1.
Unsuccessful attempt - DFHXS1201. RACF invalid attempt is now 2.

Successful attempt. No message, RACF invalid attempt reset to 0.

Unsuccessful attempt - DFHXS1201. RACF invalid attempt is now 1.

Successful attempt. No message, RACF invalid attempt reset to 0.

Unsuccessful attempt - DFHXS1201. RACF invalid attempt is now 1.
Unsuccessful attempt - DFHXS1201. RACF invalid attempt is now 2.

Successful attempt. No message, RACF invalid attempt reset to 0.

Unsuccessful attempt - DFHXS1201. RACF invalid attempt is now 1.
Unsuccessful attempt - DFHXS1201. RACF invalid attempt is now 2.
Unsuccessful attempt - DFHXS1201. RACF invalid attempt is now 3, and userid revoked.

What the user will see in the above scenario is 8 DFHXS1201 messages, along with 8 ICH408I messages, telling them that an unsuccessful attempt was made, before they see any message about the userid being revoked. On the SUCCESSFUL attempts, no message is written if the call is an EXEC CICS VERIFY PASSWORD, but the RACF count gets reset. This appears as if CICS and RACF are allowing too many unsuccessful attempts.

What would be more helpful to customers for auditability, and for CICS diagnosis is if a new message were issued if a SUCCESSFUL attempt is made AND the prior unsuccessful account was non-zero. This would let them know when the count is being reset to zero again, so that it does not appear. This isn't necessary to do if the call is an EXEC CICS SIGNON, since a successful attempt does already issue a message, but the VERIFY PASSWORD success does not.

Idea priority Medium
  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Dec 11, 2015

    This RFE is satisfied by CICS TS 5.3 which is generally available from December 11th 2015.

    A new message is now produced.

    DFHXS1206 The password supplied in the verification request for userid xxxx was valid after nnn failed attempts.

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Oct 6, 2015

    This RFE is satisfied by CICS TS 5.3 which was announced on October 5th 2015 with a planned general availability date of December 11th 2015.
    For more information see the announcement letter http://www.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=an&subtype=ca&supplier=897&letternum=ENUS215-363

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Oct 5, 2015

    Due to processing by IBM, this request was reassigned to have the following updated attributes:
    Brand - Servers and Systems Software
    Product family - Transaction Processing
    Product - CICS Transaction Server

    For recording keeping, the previous attributes were:
    Brand - WebSphere
    Product family - Transaction Processing
    Product - CICS Transaction Server

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Aug 21, 2014

    This is something we would like to address. The RFE is being moved into 'Planned for Future release' status. Please note:
    IBM’s statements regarding its plans, directions, and intent are subject to change or withdrawal without notice at IBM’s sole discretion. Information regarding potential future products is intended to outline our general product direction and it should not be relied on in making a purchasing decision. The information mentioned regarding potential future products is not a commitment, promise, or legal obligation to deliver any material, code or functionality. Information about potential future products may not be incorporated into any contract. The development, release, and timing of any future features or functionality described for our products remains at our sole discretion.

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    May 14, 2014

    Greg,
    possible solution to this could be to modify the message something along the lines

    DFHXS1201 14/05/2014 18:10:13 IYK2ZDL1 The password supplied in the verification request for userid PENFOLD was invalid (failure 1). This occurred in transaction CECI when userid CICSUSER was signed on at netname IYCWTC96.

    I think this would be more meaningful than a verify successul message. Do you agree?