Skip to Main Content
IBM Power Ideas Portal

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:

Post your ideas

Start by posting ideas and requests to this portal to enhance a Power product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted and upvote them if they matter to you,

  1. Post an idea

  2. Upvote ideas and add comments to ideas that matter most to you

  3. Get feedback from the IBM team to refine your idea

Help IBM prioritize your ideas and requests

The IBM team may need your help to refine the ideas so they may ask for more information or feedback. The Power teams will then decide if they can begin working on your idea. If they can start during the next development cycle, they will put the idea on the priority list. Each team at IBM works on a different schedule, where some ideas can be implemented right away, others may be placed on a different schedule.

Receive notification on the decision

Some ideas can be implemented at IBM, while others may not fit within the development plans for the product. In either case, the team will let you know as soon as possible. In some cases, we may be able to find alternatives for ideas which cannot be implemented in a reasonable time.


Specific link you will want to bookmark for future use

IBM Unified Ideas Portal - https://ideas.ibm.com/ - Use this site to create or search for existing Ideas across all IBM products that are outside of Power, and track all of your personal interactions with all Ideas.

Status Future consideration
Workspace IBM i
Categories Networking
Created by Guest
Created on Apr 9, 2021

OS400 Unsecure Ports

Different OS400 OS functionality depends on using non-secure ports (i.e. 446 and 8470 to 8476). If the different services (HTTP *ADMIN or CONSOLE) are configured to use secure ports (SSL) they still have dependencies on the backend for those unsecured ports. If the unsecure ports are restricted with
ADDTCPPORT PORT(446) PROTOCOL(*TCP) USRPRF(GRPNOSSL)
ADDTCPPORT PORT(8470 8476) PROTOCOL(*TCP) USRPRF(GRPNOSSL)
the services do not work properly. Additionally two system jobs do not start. Known cases as of now are below:
TS005390058
TS005241896


Use Case:

Enable capability for using only secure ports in line with Security Best Practices.


Idea priority Urgent
  • Guest
    Nov 22, 2021

    IBM will use this request as input to planning but no commitment is made or implied. This request will be updated in the future if IBM implements it. IBM will use votes and comments from others in the community to help prioritize this request.

  • Guest
    Nov 16, 2021

    Jose,
    Thank you for taking the time to submit this request. IBM has received the requirement and is evaluating it. IBM will provide a response after evaluation is complete.

  • Guest
    Aug 2, 2021

    Due to processing by IBM, this request was reassigned to have the following updated attributes:
    Brand - Servers and Systems Software
    Product family - Power Systems
    Product - IBM i
    Component - Networking
    Operating system - IBM i
    Source - Client

    For recording keeping, the previous attributes were:
    Brand - Servers and Systems Software
    Product family - Power Systems
    Product - IBM i
    Component - Core OS
    Operating system - IBM i
    Source - Client

  • Guest
    Jul 27, 2021

    The CAAC has reviewed this requirement and recommends that IBM view this as a high priority requirement that is important to be addressed. Anything that can be done to better secure the ports is High value to the overall operating system.

    Background: The COMMON Americas Advisory Council (CAAC) members have a broad range of experience in working with small and medium-sized IBM i customers. CAAC has a key role in working with IBM i development to help assess the value and impact of individual RFEs on the broader IBM i community, and has therefore reviewed your RFE.

    For more information about CAAC, see www.common.org/caac

    Nancy Uthke-Schmucki - CAAC Program Manager

  • Guest
    Apr 11, 2021

    Did you try blocking them with the build in firewall ?