The parsing of the SMF 30 and Type 80 records in enVision does not seem to line up right. Is there development being done to come up with a more comprehensive RACF reporting component. Some of the reports sorely lack detail; e.g. in the Ad Hoc Reports for IBM Mainframe (RACF) Users or Group Modifications a reason is shown that a userid is being deleted, but the userid that is to be deleted is not shown in the report. This is one of the many shortcomings with regards to the canned RACF reports provided. Is this as good as it gets?
I thought someone from RSA would at least respond. Like acknowledge the shortcoming, and state their intent either to rectify or leave be. Customer service, it's a good thing. A little disappointed.
Apologies for the late reply. I haven't looked at the specific report you referenced but the out of the box reports are more templates that are intended to be copied and modified to fit your use case. is it possible to share sample data on the SMF 30 and Type 80 events so we can better understand where there is a divergence? Nathan