Skip to Main Content

This is an IBM Automation portal for Integration 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 (

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 ( - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.

IBM Unified Ideas Portal ( - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM. - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.

Status Not under consideration
Workspace App Connect
Created by Guest
Created on Oct 20, 2023

Enhance mqsivault to provide an option to disable the display of passwords when creating the vault.

This is useful for a shared integration node environment where we don't want our operators to find out the passwords using the vault key. Operator will know the vault key but they cannot retrieve the passwords if the vault was created with the disable password display.

So the proposed solution 1) mqsivault to have an option to disable the display passwords when creating the vault 2) update mqsicredential to check if the given password is correct or not , bit similar to mqsireportdbparms

Idea priority High
  • Admin
    Ben Thompson
    Jan 15, 2024

    Idea review. Thank you very much for taking the time to raise this suggestion, but unfortunately on this occasion we would not be able to take forward the idea in its current form. Currently our vault model uses symmetric encryption. Using the vault key, you have the power to both create and read mqsicredentials entries from the vault. The intention of this idea appears to be to STOP the operator from being able to interact with other user's passwords, however it is not clear whether the need here is to entirely STOP or just to make it DIFFICULT (in the same way as the example mqsireportdbparms command which of course does not encrypt at all, and also has the option of confirming a password but only if the user has supplied it correctly). To resolve a need to entirely STOP, would require a change for the vault to use asymmetric encryption so that we could build in separate behaviours based on whether the operator presented the private key or the public key. Even if we were to re-write this component to use asymmetric encryption it is still not obvious how the feature should be designed as careful consideration would need to be applied to what level of authority the server itself should be granted. Clearly, it would need to be able to read credentials from the vault otherwise it could not do its job in communicating with third party systems. If this is actually just about making it DIFFICULT, then perhaps you would consider it sufficient to have some kind of configurable behaviour to turn off the --decode option of the mqsivault command and the --report option of the mqsicredentials command? If we were to offer this though, it would only be a "soft" way of constraining behaviour because a user could change the configurable behaviour back the other way. In other words, for determined users there will always be a way to circumvent these soft methods ... so if this is more about formally BLOCKING, then a major redesign would be required where we would need to rethink the ACE model for administration levels with separate classifications of users in this functional area.