Quantcast
Channel: SCN: Message List - Security
Viewing all 5338 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Re: SAP Assertion Ticket remains in browser after Portal logoff

November 26, 2013, 4:01 pm
$
0
0

Hi,

 

1. You can turn off session management in transaction SICF_SESSIONS. I would not do this.

2. You need to let portal know that backend is using new session management. In system landscape, go to backend properties and look for attribute with *ABAP*. You just need to tick this box and portal will start calling logoff service that kills session on backend system. The only issue I can see is if your version of portal does not supports this.In this case you will have to go with option 1.

 

There is also OSS note for this. So just search for HTTP session or something like that.

 

Cheers

↧
Search

Re: Password Related Query

November 27, 2013, 8:14 am
$
0
0

Hi Pavan,

 

Got your point.

 

Thanks & Regards,

Vinay

↧
↧

Re: Password Related Query

November 27, 2013, 8:20 am
$
0
0

Hi Patrick,

 

Active parameter value is

 

login/password_expiration_time=30 &

login/password_compliance_to_current_policy=0

 

The user being considered here had changed the password >30 days ago.

 

Thanks & Regards,

Vinay

↧

Re: SU25 - Step2B Result clarification needed

November 27, 2013, 8:49 am
$
0
0

Hi Bernhard (SAP Upgrade Expert ),

 

Thank you for the information.

Please find below the details:

 

1> Shall i assume that Step 2A output is a new feature with SAP NW 7.31?

2> I went through note 1539556, section A (Complete missing modification flags in SU24 data).

     Just to inform you, the Sandbox system (new release) is a copy of test system (old release). Now, I did a quick check in tables USOBX_CD for 1 standard sap tcode which was changed from sap defaults in DEV & TEST systems old release. I found that USOBX_CD table showed 2 entries for this tcode in DEV system while in TEST system it didn't. Do you think this may be the issue for wrong output in Sandbox system (new release)?

 

3> Also, if this is the case, do I need to run section A i.e. SU24_AUTO_REPAIR in my DEV system (with new release) before I start SU25?

 

Couple of other observations:

1> Though Step 2B did not throw me the list of standard SAP tcodes which were modified in earlier release, SAP itself has taken the sap new proposals + custom changes for such tcodes. I went to SU24 and confirmed this. Also changed their check indicators to sap defaults.

 

2>I think 2B output was incorrect compared to earlier release, but still the 2C roles were correctly populated, with auth objects added / removed as per SAP proposals.

 

Appreciate your help on the below as well:

1> Say I ran 2A, 2B; identified that some SAP std tcodes were not available in 2B output hence modified those using SU24 immediately and the data is saved in a workbench TR, 2C and 2D completed. Now i execute Step 3 which carries complete data from tables USOBX_C & USOBT_X (I assume that in step3 it will ask for a workbench TR).

 

My question: SU25 -> step 3 will also take the changes which I made using SU24 (for which a TR was raised) or   I need to first transport Step3 followed by SU24 changes, followed by 2C role changes.

 

Thanks,

Sunny Doshi

↧

Re: SU25 UPG ENHP : how to find modified roles?

November 27, 2013, 9:02 am
$
0
0

Thank you Colleen.

 

I guess that such issues might have popped up as sandbox (new release) is a copy of test system (old release).

 

I will trouble you while performing this activity in actual Dev system

 

Regards,

Sunny Doshi

↧
↧

Re: Post ECC6, Enhancement Pack 6, FBV1 does not allow users to Park a Document in a Co Code they do not have access to.

November 27, 2013, 9:57 am
$
0
0

Hi,

 

Is there really nobody out there with this problem? It's a big problem for us (but we have a lot of Co Codes in the organisation).

 

I have an OSS Message open with SAP but they're slow to come back.

 

Regards,

 

Colin

↧

Re: How to avoid standard Authorization checks in BAPI_MATERIAL_SAVEREPLICA

November 27, 2013, 10:16 am
$
0
0

Fianally we are going with a ghost ID which security will give access to all the views for that custom authorization object. We are still playing with it. If that does not work we will go with WF-BATCH.

↧

Re: Post ECC6, Enhancement Pack 6, FBV1 does not allow users to Park a Document in a Co Code they do not have access to.

November 27, 2013, 10:34 am
$
0
0

The System is working as designed.

In your previous version, somebody might have changed the check indicator proposal to "No"

>> Check the change documents for FBV1 in your previous version.

 

Work-around is Change the Change indicator proposal status to "No" in your current version, but its not a good idea as you are trying to eleminate authority check against company code which means user can do FBV1 for any company code!! <High Risk>

Instead adjust all the affected roles.

 

Best Regards,

Rama

↧
Search

Re: SAP Assertion Ticket remains in browser after Portal logoff

November 27, 2013, 12:12 pm
$
0
0

Hi,

 

do you know which IE11 feature was preventing sending a cookie to a rogue web server? I assume that your rogue web server was on same domain.

 

Cheers

↧
↧

Re: How to avoid standard Authorization checks in BAPI_MATERIAL_SAVEREPLICA

November 27, 2013, 12:59 pm
$
0
0

You will be much better off with a transaction context (if your application has one) and using SU24. Less destinations or services, less user management, less roles, less error prone, applies only to that transaction and not to all callers....

 

Cheers,

Julius

↧

Re: Reg:AL11 Autorization Rols

November 27, 2013, 4:17 pm
$
0
0

Hi

 

What type of report are you trying to develop here? What sort of user is accessing it?

 

Or, are you saying you want to restrict which part of the directory they can read/write to when they use reports?

 

Regards

Colleen

↧

User Groups in Portal

November 27, 2013, 8:53 pm
$
0
0

Hi All,

 

Like we have SAP User Groups in SAP ECC which are created through the t-code SUGR, do we have similar groups that can be created in SAP PI(Java)? Also is it really necessary to create User Groups in SAP PI where the number of users will be relatively very less when compared to ECC?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Lakshmi Ganipineni.

↧

Re: Password Related Query

November 27, 2013, 10:35 pm
$
0
0

Hi Vinay,

 

please check the logon data fo the user in question (SU01 -> logon data tab). What is the user type and is there a security policy defined? If user type is dialog and there is no security policy defined, there is something wrong with the system, if the user is able to login via username/password with an expired password without being required to change his password.

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

↧
↧

Re: Structural Authorizations Issue

November 28, 2013, 12:38 am
$
0
0

Good morning Mohammed,

 

the fact that you can access the student info in PIQST00 would indicate that the structural profile is defined correctly. however, maintain access is denied.

this can be caused by either of the following ways:

  • the maintenance indicator in the structural profile is unchecked. (from your example above, we see that it is in fact checked).
  • the PLOG object in the 'standard' authorization has insufficient maintain authorizations for ST objects.

 

Can you show me all values of the PLOG object(s) the user TESTGPC has assigned?

↧

Re: Post ECC6, Enhancement Pack 6, FBV1 does not allow users to Park a Document in a Co Code they do not have access to.

November 28, 2013, 2:11 am
$
0
0

Thanks Rama,

 

I had considered those two options previously. I think I might go with some combination of these two options.

 

Do you know why this is the standard check for Park Document? I would have thought one of the main functions of Park Document would be to Park it in a Company Code that you do not have access to so another user can then Post it.

 

Regards,

 

Colin

↧
Search

Re: how to restrict change password in su01

November 28, 2013, 3:20 am
$
0
0

Hi,

Maybe you can use transaction Su01d.

 

Regards,

Alex

↧

Re: Structural Authorizations Issue

November 28, 2013, 4:30 am
$
0
0

Hello Dimtri,

 

Appreciate you taking so much time to help me with the issue. I already anticipated PLOG values and maintained it as * . I even tried giving SAP_ALL and it didn't work.

 

I then removed SAP_ALL assignment and assigned a profile ALL in OOSB  which has * in plan version and object type with maintained checked. With this profile I am able to maintain the Advisor for the student. So somewhere the SA is not providing access in the structure. Can we in any where check where is it failing.

 

PLOG.pngALL.png

 

Thank you again for all the help

 

Best Regards,

Mohammed Sharfuddin

↧
↧

Re: Post ECC6, Enhancement Pack 6, FBV1 does not allow users to Park a Document in a Co Code they do not have access to.

November 28, 2013, 9:53 am
$
0
0

>What if you have n no of company codes and user is allowed to parking in any company code?

>>What if by mistake the user parked an invoice wrongly to another company code?(since there is no control on company code)

>>>If you take your assumption, when it comes for posting, will it allow him to post it when he doesn't have access for the company code ( The wrong entry).

 

Again they need to reverse it and park it..

 

In order to have control SAP brought in the Authority check at company code for the tcode in your question.. its up to the customer whether to have restriction or not. Thats why SU24 check indicator proposal was provided.

 

Best Regards,

Rama

↧

Migration of Authorization Concept 3.5 to 7.31

November 28, 2013, 12:52 pm
$
0
0

Hi all,

 

 

I know that the authorization concept in NW7.0 gets completely obsolete and cannot be any further retained in NW7.3.

 

 

Our team need some guide to follow as an Authorization Migration Strategy, for that we need your help.

 

 

Let me explain our scenario.

 

 

  1. We have a server with BI NW 7.0.
  2. We have other server with BI NW 7.31.

 

 

Our plan is transporting all infoobjet, infoprovider, etc of server 1  to server 2, but the security in server 1 is based with Reporting Authorization concept, the old authorization concept in NW 7.0

 

 

So, here my doubts:

 

 

A) It's possible transporting all the security of server 1 (Reporting Authorization concept ) to server 2 with BI NW7.31 and after migrate the security by the options in t-code rsecadmin:

 

 

Extra menu.

   - Migration:release 7.0 -> Release 7.3

 

 

if not possible,

 

 

B) We must migrate first the security with Reporting Authorization concept with the RSEC_MIGRATION program  to the new authorization concept in server 1 and after transporting to the server 2 (NW 7.3) and after migrate by the options in t-code rsecadmin:

 

Extra menu.

   - Migration:release 3.x -> Release 7.3

 

 

 

 

Please, guide us with some authorization strategy to follow.

 

Ramon Sanchez

↧

Re: Migration of Authorization Concept 3.5 to 7.31

November 28, 2013, 1:17 pm
$
0
0
↧
Viewing all 5338 articles
Browse latest View live
Search
<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>