Question 1

What did CA EDP/Auditor do?

Accepted Answer

CA EDP/Auditor was a security and report generation tool designed to produce reports on security issues and potential threats within an organization's IT infrastructure. It was based on the Culprit reporting language and primarily used in mainframe environments.

Question 2

Was this a system, application, or tool?

Accepted Answer

CA EDP/Auditor was an application designed for security audit processing and report generation. It provided a means to analyze security-related data and generate reports based on that data, helping organizations identify potential security vulnerabilities and compliance issues.

Question 3

What types of organizations used this?

Accepted Answer

Organizations that relied on mainframe systems for critical business operations and needed to maintain strict security and compliance standards were the typical users of CA EDP/Auditor. These organizations were often in industries such as banking, finance, insurance, and government.

Question 4

When should organizations have considered CA EDP/Auditor?

Accepted Answer

Companies considered using CA EDP/Auditor when they needed a dedicated solution for security audit reporting on mainframe systems. It was useful for organizations that needed to generate reports for compliance purposes, identify security vulnerabilities, and monitor user access and activity.

Question 5

What are the alternatives to CA EDP/Auditor?

Accepted Answer

Alternatives to CA EDP/Auditor include IBM Security zSecure, Top Secret Security, and ACF2. These products offer similar capabilities for security administration, auditing, and reporting in mainframe environments.

Question 6

What infrastructure was required?

Accepted Answer

CA EDP/Auditor ran on z/OS, z/VM, and zVSE/VSEn platforms. It was primarily designed for mainframe environments and required specific subsystems and configurations to operate correctly.

Question 7

For mainframe products: Did this run in an LPAR?

Accepted Answer

As a mainframe product, CA EDP/Auditor typically ran within an LPAR (Logical Partition) on a mainframe system. It was often dependent on z/OS and required specific security subsystems like RACF, ACF2, or Top Secret to manage security policies and access control.

Question 8

What configuration files were used?

Accepted Answer

CA EDP/Auditor used configuration files to define report parameters, data sources, and security settings. These files specified how the product accessed and processed security data to generate reports. The Culprit reporting language was used to customize report layouts and content.

Question 9

What were the main system components?

Accepted Answer

The main system components of CA EDP/Auditor included the report generator, data extraction modules, and security interface components. These components worked together to extract security data, process it according to defined rules, and generate reports in a specified format.

Question 10

What authentication methods were supported?

Accepted Answer

CA EDP/Auditor supported authentication methods provided by the underlying mainframe security subsystems, such as RACF, ACF2, and Top Secret. It leveraged these systems to authenticate users and control access to security data and reporting functions.

Question 11

How did CA EDP/Auditor help with compliance?

Accepted Answer

CA EDP/Auditor helped organizations meet compliance requirements by providing detailed reports on security-related events and activities. These reports could be used to demonstrate adherence to industry regulations and internal security policies.

Question 12

How did it help reduce risk?

Accepted Answer

By providing insights into security vulnerabilities and potential threats, CA EDP/Auditor enabled organizations to proactively address security risks and prevent security breaches. This helped protect sensitive data and maintain the integrity of critical systems.

Question 13

How did it integrate with other systems?

Accepted Answer

CA EDP/Auditor integrated with existing enterprise security systems, such as security information and event management (SIEM) platforms, to provide a comprehensive view of security events and activities. This integration enabled organizations to correlate security data from multiple sources and improve their overall security posture.

Question 14

How did it compare to alternatives?

Accepted Answer

Compared to alternatives like IBM Security zSecure, CA EDP/Auditor offered a different approach to report generation and customization through its use of the Culprit reporting language. This allowed for highly tailored reports but required specialized knowledge of the Culprit language.

Question 15

How did CA EDP/Auditor protect sensitive data?

Accepted Answer

CA EDP/Auditor leveraged the security features of the underlying mainframe operating system and security subsystems to protect sensitive data. It supported access control mechanisms provided by RACF, ACF2, and Top Secret to restrict access to security data and reporting functions.

Question 16

What audit/logging capabilities existed?

Accepted Answer

CA EDP/Auditor provided audit logging capabilities to track user access and activities within the system. These logs could be used to monitor compliance with security policies, detect unauthorized access attempts, and investigate security incidents.

Question 17

What access control model was used?

Accepted Answer

CA EDP/Auditor used the access control model provided by the mainframe security subsystem (RACF, ACF2, Top Secret). This model typically involved defining user profiles, assigning permissions to resources, and controlling access based on user roles or group memberships.

Question 18

What encryption was used and where?

Accepted Answer

CA EDP/Auditor relied on the encryption capabilities provided by the underlying mainframe system to protect sensitive data at rest and in transit. It could leverage hardware-based encryption or software-based encryption algorithms to secure data.

Question 19

What level of technical expertise was required to implement it?

Accepted Answer

Implementing CA EDP/Auditor required expertise in mainframe systems, security administration, and the Culprit reporting language. It involved configuring the product to access security data, defining report parameters, and customizing report layouts.

Question 20

What ongoing operational requirements existed?

Accepted Answer

Ongoing operational requirements for CA EDP/Auditor included monitoring system performance, maintaining security configurations, and updating report definitions as needed. It also involved managing user access and ensuring the integrity of security data.

Question 21

What were common implementation challenges?

Accepted Answer

Common implementation challenges included integrating CA EDP/Auditor with existing security systems, customizing reports to meet specific business requirements, and ensuring the accuracy and completeness of security data.

Question 22

What administrative interfaces were available?

Accepted Answer

Administrative interfaces for CA EDP/Auditor typically included a command-line interface (CLI) and configuration files. These interfaces allowed administrators to manage system settings, user access, and report definitions. The Culprit reporting language also provided a means to customize report layouts and content.

Share Your Product Experience

CA EDP/Auditor

Product Overview

Frequently Asked Questions