RE: Atrium and field 112

2019-07-23 Thread Brian Pancia
Dave,

You already got the solution from Doug and I.  Doug of course spelled it out 
much nicer than I did.

Step 1 – Stop using Unrestricted Access
Step 2 – Stop writing code to disable Unrestricted Access.  Developing SQL 
scripts and code on field 112 is not going to help with Unrestricted Access.  
This is unnecessary customizations and could have a negative impact on future 
needs of the system.  See Step 1 for clarification.
Step 3 – Draw out your permission scenarios out on a white board.  You could 
setup a parent company to the 2 companies you want restricted access to and 
then assign people to that parent company.  This will give members of the 
parent company access to all assets for the 2 companies.  If you only want a 
small subset of assets visible by the special group, then look at setting up a 
separate operating company and have those assets supported by them or setup a 
special customer company and have those assets assigned to the special company.

This should be basic configuration.  Most organizations do not setup their 
companies and permission structures properly.  Sooner or later they run into 
issues like you are running into.  Using Unrestricted Access for anyone outside 
a small set of users like admins and auditors is such a bad idea.  You said 
your problem was trying to figure out a way around Unrestricted Access and the 
simple answer is stop using Unrestricted Access.

V/R,

Brian


From: ARSList  On Behalf Of Dave Barber
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 5:17 AM
To: ARSList 
Subject: Re: Atrium and field 112

LJ/To all of you who have answered so far, many thanks for persevering with me 
and attempting to guide me.

With regards dynamic groups, request ID in Base Element would require further 
permissions added beyond the existing Assignee Group, CMDB Data Change All, 
CMDB Data View All, CMDB Write Security Parent Group and Hierarchical Group?

The change and CMDB components, whilst on the same platform, are not really 
linked as such - separate users, albeit in the same logical company.  They are 
purely using the CMDB for managing the various assets, they won't be raising 
changes against them.  No actual customers have access to either the CMDB or 
Change applications/data.  For reference, there are 2 companies that would have 
restricted CIs, out of around 3,200 companies.

Currently we are purely using the "standard" 9.1 permissions, nothing custom, 
no hierarchical groups, no parents, etc. - this is the first time that we have 
looked into any form of modification of the permissions.

The process I had initially tried to restrict visibility of the CIs for a 
specific company was using a little SQL to replace the 10 entry 
("Unrestricted Access") in field 112 on base element with another (custom) 
group.  Very simple workflow, the values in field 112 were correctly amended, 
it's just that the revised permissions don't actually work.

Regards

Dave

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 15:42, LJ LongWing 
mailto:lj.longw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dave,
When implementing dynamic permission groups, you need to ensure that the field 
you are using not only needs to be in that field, but also in request iddid 
you miss that by chance?

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:59 AM Dave Barber 
mailto:daddy.bar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,

This is on ARS 9.1.02.

We have a range of users making use of both Atrium and Change Management.  We 
have a range of CIs uploaded against a large number of compaies, and users have 
always been given unrestricted access.

A recent requirement has involved us wanting to restrict visibility of some CIs 
to specific users.  Multi tenancy would not be viable (as there are hundreds of 
companies within our system), so I had thought that replacing the value for 
"Unrestricted Access" in field 112 in Base Element for the relevant CIs with 
another permissions group, and adding that permissions group to the required 
users would have the desired effect.  It does not work - profiles without the 
new permissions group can still see the "locked down" CIs.

Has anyone else implemented anything along these lines?

Regards

Dave Barber
--
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
--
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this e-mail and its attachments 
contain confidential information belonging to the sender, which is legally 
privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) 
named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any 
disclosure, copying, distribution or action in reliance upon the contents of 
the information transmitted is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
information in error, please delete it immediately.
-- 
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist


Re: Atrium and field 112

2019-07-23 Thread Dave Barber
LJ/To all of you who have answered so far, many thanks for persevering with
me and attempting to guide me.

With regards dynamic groups, request ID in Base Element would require
further permissions added beyond the existing Assignee Group, CMDB Data
Change All, CMDB Data View All, CMDB Write Security Parent Group and
Hierarchical Group?

The change and CMDB components, whilst on the same platform, are not really
linked as such - separate users, albeit in the same logical company.  They
are purely using the CMDB for managing the various assets, they won't be
raising changes against them.  No actual customers have access to either
the CMDB or Change applications/data.  For reference, there are 2 companies
that would have restricted CIs, out of around 3,200 companies.

Currently we are purely using the "standard" 9.1 permissions, nothing
custom, no hierarchical groups, no parents, etc. - this is the first time
that we have looked into any form of modification of the permissions.

The process I had initially tried to restrict visibility of the CIs for a
specific company was using a little SQL to replace the 10 entry
("Unrestricted Access") in field 112 on base element with another (custom)
group.  Very simple workflow, the values in field 112 were correctly
amended, it's just that the revised permissions don't actually work.

Regards

Dave

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 15:42, LJ LongWing  wrote:

> Dave,
> When implementing dynamic permission groups, you need to ensure that the
> field you are using not only needs to be in that field, but also in request
> iddid you miss that by chance?
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:59 AM Dave Barber 
> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> This is on ARS 9.1.02.
>>
>> We have a range of users making use of both Atrium and Change
>> Management.  We have a range of CIs uploaded against a large number of
>> compaies, and users have always been given unrestricted access.
>>
>> A recent requirement has involved us wanting to restrict visibility of
>> some CIs to specific users.  Multi tenancy would not be viable (as there
>> are hundreds of companies within our system), so I had thought that
>> replacing the value for "Unrestricted Access" in field 112 in Base Element
>> for the relevant CIs with another permissions group, and adding that
>> permissions group to the required users would have the desired effect.  It
>> does not work - profiles without the new permissions group can still see
>> the "locked down" CIs.
>>
>> Has anyone else implemented anything along these lines?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Dave Barber
>> --
>> ARSList mailing list
>> ARSList@arslist.org
>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>>
> --
> ARSList mailing list
> ARSList@arslist.org
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>
-- 
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist