Is it possible to set custom view as default for security role?
Not really. System views are nowhere related to be driven by security roles like forms/dashboards. The closest one can be either keep the view in a Dashboard and the dashboard can be controlled by security role. Read more
Otherwise, create Personal view to share with a Team, for each security role need - create a Team (1-1) for easy mapping/sharing.
Related
In Dynamics-365 crm, I want to grant read-write access request to an user of D-365 to a specific record of an entity if the user is not privileged with that privileges.
I did that by assigning some sort of security roles to that user. But I can't do that by modifying security role.
So how can I do that without assigning security role?
You can achieve the same share functionality in code using GrantAccessRequest, refer my another Stack Overflow answer for C# plugin example.
For web api, your org has to be greater than v9.0 as GrantAccess message was not available in web api till v8.2
Still to achieve this object based security model, you should give users privilege to read-write that entity records through role based security model. Without user having entity edit privilege in security role they cannot edit by getting record sharing.
Read more: Use record-based security to control access to records
If you do not wish to change/update your security Roles, then you can do so by sharing a particular Record with Either Team or User.Below 2 images will help you explain how to share a Record.
Now this process below is manual and you could achieve this process programmatically as well using C# i.e server side coding
Note:
If this solves your problem do mark this answer as solved.
I created a multi-tenant application where each tenant have different set of users. I am trying to implement a functionality where same user might exist in different tenants. Does outsystems provide such functionality or I have to create my custom logic ?
Right now, I did create a user having same username in 2 different tenants and during login I am showing user to select tenants. But on changing tenants and logging to that tenant, the environment doesn't switch to that tenant that user has selected.
Below is the image of the logic of switching tenants and logging in the customer.
During debugging I saw that after executing TenantSwitch action it did change the Site.TenantID property but after User_Login action is reverted to the first tenant not the one user selected.
When you use User_Login(), the system will log you in the first Tenant it finds in the DB that has that username, thus ignoring your TenantSwitch().
So, if you want to login to a specific Tenant in your case, you need to be more explicit and instead use the Login() action - after the tenant switch.
For a thorough explanation of this, with example code, please check out the following deepdive Master Class on Multi-Tenancy starting around the 27:20 minute mark.
This isn't available out of the box as OutSystems assigns users (and all entities) to a specific tenant. Entities belonging to single tenanted modules are assigned to the default tenant.
OutSystems uses a hidden .Tenant_Id attribute on each entity to indicate which tenant that user belongs to. You can unhide this attribute for the users entity by selecting it, clicking More... and then ticking the relevant box in the Advanced tab. You can then access the attribute directly, but be aware this will hinder OutSystems' ability to do some of the stuff it does automatically to ensure that you access tenant specific data.
When you use the User_Login action OutSystems will deduce which tenant to use from the User.Tenant_Id attribute regardless of which tenant you've switched it to previously. The user would need an account for each tenant they need to use, but there's no reason this couldn't be done behind the scenes with OS fetching the correct username before logging in. You'd need to ensure they all stay in sync though, especially the passwords ofc.
CRM 2015: I want to be able to create a role for local IT to be able to add user accounts and assign roles.
Regarding the 'adding roles' portion, is it simple enough just to create a role for local IT to 'write' to 'security' roles in the'business management' tab of 'security roles' at the user level?
No, this is not that simple. User cannot give another user privilege higher than he has (it would be a serious security hole). So for example you have role to edit Security roles and you have Read access for Accounts in your Business Units. If somebody in your Business unit has no Read access and only User access, you can add him Read access for Business Unit (the same you have), but you will not be able to give him Organizational access (so higher than yours). You could imagine that if this would be possible, you will be able to basically give yourself Admin privilege and do whatever you want in CRM.
Knowing that, it should be possible for you to create a role that for example have full access to Accounts, Contacts, Custom entities etc. and Security Roles. This role would be able to modify other users access levels to Accounts, Contacts etc. but no other entities that they don't have privilege to.
Exactly the same logic applies to assigning the Security Roles. So user A cannot assign a Security Role to user B, if it gives user B privileges higher than has User A.
In the end, it is very hard to properly implement the scenario that you described, because there are so many privileges and user needs to have a lot of them to even use the CRM. I've tried this once but could not satisfy the business requirement - it always ended up with using System Admin role, because there was always some scenario that could have not been handled by a user only with this "specific" security modification role.
Assigning 'System Administrator' security role and changing Access Mode in user record to 'Administrative' helped me to achieve this. User still cannot access any transaction data. So, I think you can go for this approach.
We are trying to create a web application that can create Service Activity entities in CRM Online. The web application stalls out with the error "Principal team (Id=fee1cfb8-9e6e-e511-80e7-3863bb36ebd8, type=9) is missing prvReadActivity privilege (Id=650c14fe-3521-45fe-a000-84138688e45d)."
I have located the Security Roles area of CRM Online but I am unable to determine WHICH of the roles corresponds to prvReadActivity, and for which entity.
Does anyone know how to apply prvReadActivity privilege to a team?
Thank you everyone!
prvReadActivity is a privileges for read of the activity entities. Check out Security role UI to privilege mapping for a mapping.
A single security role can contain many privileges. If you open a security role on the core tab, at the top there should be a row for activity. So give your team a security role which contains access to the activity entity, try testing with system administrator to be sure as that has access to everything.
I am using vaadin 7, and jboss 7.1.1. There is a business requirement for very granular ui access. There will be parent windows per business function, and in that window functions relative to it. Business requires enabling and disabling those functions within, per user, so as an example, a parent window that represents employees, and when you click that you enter the child window which has functions like editing, deleting, viewing, adding,etc etc but that access must be customized to the user using it, so user x can update but not delete, as an example.
So what i came up with was to store that information in the database. In the database there will be a users table with username and a user guid. Then a parentview table and and parentchildren table and then lastly a userview table. i will store in the userview table the users guid and either the view they have access to and what type of access as in read,write,update,etc... I will on the ui login authenticate against ldap, get the users information and guid and use the guid to pull the users view access from the userview table in the database and store it in the vaadin session, and then on the ui, read that from the session and show the correct access.
I am not sure if this is the best way which is why i am asking if my solution is ok? I have been reading lots of doc's around security but non seem to achieve what i want. Another point of keeping it in the db, is that i can create a user admin ui which can edit the users access simply by updating the db, i dont want to redeploy or do anything with the webserver, I would prefer a ui user access control module and for someone with rights to it to administer that access. I would really appreciate insight and some ideas into this.
Thanks guys, I would appreciate any input.
What you want to achieve, regardless of the environment you are in and technology you are using, is fine-grained access control / authorization.
The way to do that is to use authorization frameworks. Spring Security has one for instance. I'm not sure whether Vaadin comes with anything.
In our company we use Vaadin to develop a management portal and we then use XACML to apply fine-grained decisions to the portal such as which functions to enable for which users and even which items to display in a Vaadin table.
Generally speaking you want to look at the field of attribute-based access control (NIST ABAC). ABAC lets you define authorization constraints based on different factors/parameters such as user attributes (location, department, role...) and resource attributes (where the resource can be data, widgets, functions... You name it).
I actually delivered a webinar yesterday on the topic of fine-grained authorization for Java MVC apps. I think it could prove useful for you.
If you go down the XACML path, you do not need to create a custom database with the information inside as you have done. All you need to do is write authorization policies e.g. a user in purchasing can use the purchasing functions.
There are several open source XACML implementations as well as vendor solutions such as the one I work for, Axiomatics.
I hope this helps. I've also written a lengthier answer here which covers the broader field of authorization.