| Author | 
		  Message
		 | 
		
		  | bbburson | 
		  
		    
			  
				 Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:04 am    Post subject: Can setmqaut wildcard the user/group? | 
				     | 
			   
			 
		   | 
		
		
		   Partisan
 
 Joined: 06 Jan 2004 Posts: 378 Location: Nowhere near a queue manager 
  | 
		  
		    
			  
				Here's a question I haven't seen addressed.  I know the WMQ objects in setmqaut commands can be wildcarded so that one command can set authorizations for several queues at a time.  But now my customer wants to know if there is a way to grant authorizations for a particular queue to ALL users/groups.  In particular we have a MODEL queue that is used by many apps and they frequently forget to request the correct authorizations for that queue when a new application comes along. Is there any way to code the equivalent of
 
   
	| Code: | 
   
  
	| setmqaut -m QMGR -t q -n QUEUE -g * +get +put | 
   
 
 I've tried the command (with appropriate quoting of the * character) and it returns 
   
	| Code: | 
   
  
	| AMQ7026: A principal or group name was invalid. | 
   
 
  so I'm not too hopeful that a wildcarded user/group is possible, but it's worth the asking. | 
			   
			 
		   | 
		
		
		  | Back to top | 
		  
		  	
		   | 
		
		
		    | 
		
		
		  | jefflowrey | 
		  
		    
			  
				 Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:09 am    Post subject:  | 
				     | 
			   
			 
		   | 
		
		
		   Grand Poobah
 
 Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 19981
  
  | 
		  
		    
			  
				Nope.
 
 
You could write a shell script that would grep /etc/group and run the setmqaut for each group, and then schedule this to run once a day or week or whatever. _________________ I am *not* the model of the modern major general. | 
			   
			 
		   | 
		
		
		  | Back to top | 
		  
		  	
		   | 
		
		
		    | 
		
		
		  | markt | 
		  
		    
			  
				 Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:22 am    Post subject:  | 
				     | 
			   
			 
		   | 
		
		
		    Knight
 
 Joined: 14 May 2002 Posts: 512
  
  | 
		  
		    
			  
				| On Unix, at least, you should be able to grant permissions to the "nobody" group - everyone is considered a member of that. But there's no finer granularity. | 
			   
			 
		   | 
		
		
		  | Back to top | 
		  
		  	
		   | 
		
		
		    | 
		
		
		  | bbburson | 
		  
		    
			  
				 Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:23 am    Post subject:  | 
				     | 
			   
			 
		   | 
		
		
		   Partisan
 
 Joined: 06 Jan 2004 Posts: 378 Location: Nowhere near a queue manager 
  | 
		  
		    
			  
				
   
	| markt wrote: | 
   
  
	| On Unix, at least, you should be able to grant permissions to the "nobody" group - everyone is considered a member of that. But there's no finer granularity. | 
   
 
What a concept!  A group called "nobody" that includes -- wait, let me guess -- everybody!  UNIX English is even stranger than standard English.
 
 
Thanks, Mark.  That seems to do the trick.  I'm sure my customer will be pleased. | 
			   
			 
		   | 
		
		
		  | Back to top | 
		  
		  	
		   | 
		
		
		    | 
		
		
		  | bbburson | 
		  
		    
			  
				 Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:10 am    Post subject:  | 
				     | 
			   
			 
		   | 
		
		
		   Partisan
 
 Joined: 06 Jan 2004 Posts: 378 Location: Nowhere near a queue manager 
  | 
		  
		    
			  
				
   
	| markt wrote: | 
   
  
	| On Unix, at least, you should be able to grant permissions to the "nobody" group - everyone is considered a member of that. But there's no finer granularity. | 
   
 
 
 
Mark,
 
 
Here's my customer's response:
 
   
	| Code: | 
   
  
	| Sounds like what we are looking for in this case.  I would like to get confirmation from ibm that this is a valid/supported use so that we don't get bit later if this is really a hole they close at some point. | 
   
 
 
What would be the best way to get such confirmation in a format I can pass on to them?  wink,wink,nudge,nudge | 
			   
			 
		   | 
		
		
		  | Back to top | 
		  
		  	
		   | 
		
		
		    | 
		
		
		  | jefflowrey | 
		  
		    
			  
				 Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:18 am    Post subject:  | 
				     | 
			   
			 
		   | 
		
		
		   Grand Poobah
 
 Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 19981
  
  | 
		  
		    
			  
				Since the meaning of the group "nobody" is determined exclusively by Unix... why would IBM or the MQ team make any warantees about it's behavior?
 
 
Would you expect a statement about the meaning of the "Everyone" group on Windows? _________________ I am *not* the model of the modern major general. | 
			   
			 
		   | 
		
		
		  | Back to top | 
		  
		  	
		   | 
		
		
		    | 
		
		
		  | markt | 
		  
		    
			  
				 Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:01 am    Post subject:  | 
				     | 
			   
			 
		   | 
		
		
		    Knight
 
 Joined: 14 May 2002 Posts: 512
  
  | 
		  
		    
			  
				| chapter 10 of the system admin guide perhaps? page 133 in my copy. | 
			   
			 
		   | 
		
		
		  | Back to top | 
		  
		  	
		   | 
		
		
		    | 
		
		
		  | bbburson | 
		  
		    
			  
				 Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:18 am    Post subject:  | 
				     | 
			   
			 
		   | 
		
		
		   Partisan
 
 Joined: 06 Jan 2004 Posts: 378 Location: Nowhere near a queue manager 
  | 
		  
		    
			  
				
   
	| markt wrote: | 
   
  
	| chapter 10 of the system admin guide perhaps? page 133 in my copy. | 
   
 
 
Thanks Mark.  Just what I need.  I get so used to coming to mqseries.net for quick answers that sometimes I forget to look in the books first.  And besides I'm not sure I would have stumbled across this reference as a way to grant global authorizations to a queue. | 
			   
			 
		   | 
		
		
		  | Back to top | 
		  
		  	
		   | 
		
		
		    | 
		
		
		  | jefflowrey | 
		  
		    
			  
				 Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:20 am    Post subject:  | 
				     | 
			   
			 
		   | 
		
		
		   Grand Poobah
 
 Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 19981
  
  | 
		  
		    
		   | 
		
		
		  | Back to top | 
		  
		  	
		   | 
		
		
		    | 
		
		
		  | bbburson | 
		  
		    
			  
				 Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:06 am    Post subject:  | 
				     | 
			   
			 
		   | 
		
		
		   Partisan
 
 Joined: 06 Jan 2004 Posts: 378 Location: Nowhere near a queue manager 
  | 
		  
		    
		   | 
		
		
		  | Back to top | 
		  
		  	
		   | 
		
		
		    | 
		
		
		  | 
		    
		   |