Same Auth Objects CM in su24

Hi All
In SU24 for a Tcode SU01 in S_TCODE the following auth objects are CM.
S_USER_AGR
S_USER_AUT
S_USER_GRP
S_USER_PRO
S_USER_SAS
& for Tcode PFCG
S_USER_AGR
S_USER_AUT
S_USER_GRP
S_USER_PRO
S_USER_SAS
I am developing a role initially with SU01 Tcode. For the auth object S_USER_AGR, I am giving 01,02,03,06 field values.
Later I add PFCG Tcode for same role P_TCODE. For the auth object S_USER_AGR , I am giving 22,21 field values.
My question is if the role is assigned to a user
1.     will he be able to create, change, display, & delete roles using PFCG ????
2.     What is the best way to restrict the users in create, change, display, & delete???
3.     For PFCG Tcode none of the Auth. Objs (the objects that are added by adding SU01 or PFCG Tcode VIA MENU)are maintained in the role what would be the implication??
Thanks,
VJ

Hi,
1.What is the purpose behind the calling of multiple Tcodes thru a single T.code .I mean to say, suppose, i require a C.Code object to be associated with a T.code for doing that, why i am connecting it to C.Code object of some other T.codes.
Many tcodes are customized to limit the access / risk. The best example is with SM30. If an user want to maintain a table, you can create a custom transaction which skips the intial screen (user don't need to enter the table name) and allows the user to edit the right or only one table rather than many.
You can connect your custom authorization object to F-67, it will not affect FBV1. the settings from FBV1 can be overwritten with the entries in F-67. use transaction SE93 to see more details and customization in transaction F-67.
2.If i assign a C.Code (let say 1000)thru object F_BKPF_BUKRS to a user,does it mean that,i don't need to assign that C.code to user again for access related to C.code 1000 in the accounting document area.Or is there anything like that, the C.Code access will be coded globally for that user for all C.code related access for FI, MM and SD.
Once you assign the authorization to a company code 1000 it means user has access to this company code across modules. This is subject to the transactions and thier authorization objects attached to them in other modules. Note that all the transactions doesn't perform authorization check for Company code.
3.Is there any T.code,from where i can associate a authorization object with a T.code.
You can use SU24 itself.
Hope it clarifies your queries.
Regards,
Gowrinadh

Similar Messages

Do 2 same auth objects with different values bleed together?

If I had a user who had Auth object F_BKPF_BUK with Activity 01 and Company Code 1200 and also Auth Object F_BKPF_BUK with Activity 03 and Company Code 1300, would the user have 01 and 03 for both Company Code 1200 and 1300 or would the user be restricted to 01 for 1200 and 03 for 1300?

It depends on the object and how the result of the authority-check is "built".
For the result of a single authority-check Sanju is correct.
It would not make sense to attempt to display something (retrieving the value from the record) which has not been created yet (checking the value in the entry screen).
However the opposite can be true for authority-checks within arguments:
- IF weak_check_failed    "user is not authorized...
- THEN perform strong_check    "permit everything if passes...
- ELSE return_to_...     "Go back to list...
However, in many cases this weaker : stronger check is against different objects.
Other transactions will completely bypass the one object and only use a stronger one.
F_BKPF_BUK should be okay for transactions FB01 and FB03, for example.
Cheers,
Julius

SU24 on M_EINK_FRG auth object

Hello Gurs,
Requirement
To make the release code/group to Org filed . Currently is not a Org filed.
What I have done:
The auth object is M_EINK_FRG.
Before I make it org field, I was cleaning up some tcodes for eg : Me35 ,ME35K and ME28 to deactivate the object in SU24 ( meaning NO in the proposal u201Ctabu201D as no users are assigned to this tcode in production.
Question:
After capturing in transport I am getting pop up with " Data automatically corrected " message and changes are getting reflected in SU24 once I click on this pop green check mark button. no sure why
I have problem with this object only not which other auth object
Please suggestion or did you experience any of this sort
Damodar

I think he only wants the proposal flag as 'No', but then SU24 automatically corrects the value based on TSTCA.
See How to handle unwanted SU24 proposals which are automatically "corrected"? and the post by Keerti Vemulapali, which points to SAP note 1404093.
PS: What would be very usefull for an "automatic correction" would be in the case of report type transactions to check whether the submitted report has been assigned to an S_PROGRAM group, and fill that with p_action SUBMIT. Any chances..?
Cheers,
Julius

Deletion of auth objects Corresponding to tcodes

Q1.
If a transaction is deleted from the menu wthr the Corresponding authorization objects are deleted.
Q2.Eg
What if the tcode MM02 is deleted from the role which has MM01/MM02/MM60/MM03 transaction codes, In this case some of the auth objects of MM02 are same as the other tcode auth objects, then how does deletion of MM02 from role ensure that only the corresponding object--> values are removed.?
Rakesh

Q1.
If a transaction is deleted from the menu wthr the Corresponding authorization objects are deleted.
It depends..
If the auth object's status is 'standard' and it is coming from only one t-code which is being removed, then it gets removed. If the status is 'changed', then it doesn't get removed.
Q2.Eg
What if the tcode MM02 is deleted from the role which has MM01/MM02/MM60/MM03 transaction codes, In this case some of the auth objects of MM02 are same as the other tcode auth objects, then how does deletion of MM02 from role ensure that only the corresponding object--> values are removed.?
No, the auth object won't get removed as that is coming from su24 from other t-codes also.
If different t-codes are bringing different field combination values, then the instance which is coming from MM02(if it is being deleted) will get removed, again assuming that the instance is standard and not changed.

How can I limit/control the addition of auth. objects to security roles?

Checking the authorization object S_USER_VAL it seemed that it grants the ability to limit the addition of authorization objects, but I tried using a test ID in sandbox along with a test role, removing the object, creating ranges in order to limit to a certaing type of auth. objects and didn't work. S_USER_AGR will give me access to limit which type of roles I can modify, but I'm looking to restrict the addition of specific security objects to security roles. If anyone knows the answer to this please share! Thanks in advance for your help!!!!
Edited by: Armando Salas on Nov 29, 2011 7:41 PM

Hi Armando,
Try with auth.obj. S_USER_AUT. A suggestion. Search this objects with tcode SU24, for instance, for tcode PFCG and it gives a list with objects.
I hope this helps you
Regards
Eduardo

S_PROJECTS auth object

I am trying to create a role for IMG display access only
I made ACTVT in all the Auth objects "03" or "display"
but in S_PROJECTS auth object, in "activity" there is no "display" , how do I make ACTVT in S_PROJECTS object "display"
Thanks
Message was edited by:
Jackofalltrades

Hi,
First of all all activities dont apply to all auth objects.(for example generate activity might not be applicable for all auth objects)
So SAP proposed what activities might be relevant to a particular Auth Object.
This information is in TACTZ Tables.
So perhaps u can verfiy the table and u would find that the entries displayed in ur Activity for S_PROJECTS would be the same values as are in S_PROJECTS values in TACTZ table.
HoweverYou can maintain 03 for this object too.
Select the pencil button for the activity field.
It will take u to a dialog box which contains activity fields.
Now if u dont find the 03 field there. Then right click on the screen and select more values option.
It would display all the activities.
However if the 03 field is not mentioned as a proposed activity for that Object by SAP (u can see this info in TACTZ) then make sure that u actually need this object for doing any display activites.
Hope this helps
Manohar

Auth Objects in ABAP Programs

Dear All,
how could I find the auth object being validated in programs?
Using SU24 I am able to find transactions checking auth object...but I am not quit sure sure if there are some other programs using/checking those auth objects.
In general I want to check one specific auth object where is used/checked.
I will appreciate your help.
Regards
FedeX

Please use the standard report RSABAPSC to check the authority check statements used in the program for any TCode. Also you can look into ABAP codes in more details by using the program RSANAL00.
Regards,
Dipanjan

CC5.2: Auth objects database table for legacy systems

Hi,
Where are the auth objects for legacy systems stored?
I mean, for SAP systems the auth objects ar stored in the tables SAPOBJ and SYSSAPOBJ.
Can anybody help me?
Thanks in advance

correct formatting...I wish you could edit your posts instead of reposting!
Just a performance tip--> since it looks as though you are looping through and performing the same statement many times, you should consider using a prepared statement:
PreparedStatement ps = con.prepareStatement("insert into Table1 (Col1,COl2,Col3) " +
"values ( ? , ? , ? )");
for (int k=0; j<array1.length; k++) {
if (array1[k] !=null)
tt = array1[k].getArray2();
for (int j=0; j<50; j++) {
if (array2[k] !=null)
ps.setString(1, tt[j].getString1);
ps.setString(2, tt[j].getString2);
ps.setString(3, tt[j].getString3);
ps.executeUpdate();You will notice a significant performance gain if you are looping many times.
Advanced--> huge performance gain if you use batch statement in this loop!
PreparedStatement ps = con.prepareStatement("insert into Table1 (Col1,COl2,Col3) " +
"values ( ? , ? , ? )");
for (int k=0; j<array1.length; k++) {
if (array1[k] !=null)
tt = array1[k].getArray2();
for (int j=0; j<50; j++) {
if (array2[k] !=null)
ps.setString(1, tt[j].getString1);
ps.setString(2, tt[j].getString2);
ps.setString(3, tt[j].getString3);
ps.addBatch();
//when completed all looping
int[] insertCount = ps.executeBatch();Jamie

Error "Inconsistancy in the auth object P_ORGIN"

Hello Gurus,
I have to add a tcode which involves auth object P_ORGIN. When I add the tcode and go to authorization tab then it gives the error as "Inconsistancy in the auth object P_Orgin"
Please let me know how should I add the tcode now. Thank you !
Regards,
MA

PLease provide tcode
The reason why the profile generator cannot correctly insert the
default values of these transactions is due to a data inconsistency in
table USOBT_C (default values for customers). The table does not
contain an entry for field BTRTL of authorization object P_Orgin.
You can immediately correct the incomplete data in your customer table
USOBT_C using the following steps:
Step 1 Execute transaction SU24
Step 2 Enter the transaction affected by this error ie XXXX
Step 3 "Change check indicator" (F6) in the application toolbar.
Step 4 With "Display field values" (F7) you check the default values of
P_Orgin. Please document the values.
Step 5 Go back to the previous screen and set the check indicator from
"Check/maintain" to "Check" for P_Orgin.
Step 6 Set the indicator for P_Orgin back to "Check/maintain".
Step 7 Choose the function "Change field values" (F6) and insert the
formerly documented values for AUTHC in object P_Orgin.
Now you see also the field BTRTL being presented.
Save the changes.
Repeat steps 3-7 for each of the transactions affected.
Hope you are clear with the steps.
Thanks,
Prasant
Edited by: Prasant K Paichha on Mar 3, 2010 3:01 PM

Difference in Objects maintained in SU24 and inside the role.

Hi Experts,
I noticed that for t.code F-67,default objects maintained in SU24 are different from the objects associated with same t.code in a role.
In SU24 only three objects are associated(F_BKPF_BUK,F_BKPF_KOA and S_TCODE), wherein a role there are eight objets maintained.(F_BKPF_BED,F_BKPF_BEK,F_BKPF_BES,F_BKPF_BLA,F_BKPF_BUK,F_BKPF_GSB,F_BKPF_KOA and F_FAGL_SEG)
Please clarify ! what is the reason of this difference.
Regards,
Mukesh

Hi,
1.What is the purpose behind the calling of multiple Tcodes thru a single T.code .I mean to say, suppose, i require a C.Code object to be associated with a T.code for doing that, why i am connecting it to C.Code object of some other T.codes.
Many tcodes are customized to limit the access / risk. The best example is with SM30. If an user want to maintain a table, you can create a custom transaction which skips the intial screen (user don't need to enter the table name) and allows the user to edit the right or only one table rather than many.
You can connect your custom authorization object to F-67, it will not affect FBV1. the settings from FBV1 can be overwritten with the entries in F-67. use transaction SE93 to see more details and customization in transaction F-67.
2.If i assign a C.Code (let say 1000)thru object F_BKPF_BUKRS to a user,does it mean that,i don't need to assign that C.code to user again for access related to C.code 1000 in the accounting document area.Or is there anything like that, the C.Code access will be coded globally for that user for all C.code related access for FI, MM and SD.
Once you assign the authorization to a company code 1000 it means user has access to this company code across modules. This is subject to the transactions and thier authorization objects attached to them in other modules. Note that all the transactions doesn't perform authorization check for Company code.
3.Is there any T.code,from where i can associate a authorization object with a T.code.
You can use SU24 itself.
Hope it clarifies your queries.
Regards,
Gowrinadh

Custom TCODE-Auth Object Assignment

Hello All- I see a very weird thing with custom TCODE assignment, here is what I see:
1)We have Display role which has all functions tcodes in it, which goes to every one on PRD.
2)Usually we assign custom tcodes which are not critical to this role, and this custom tcode would have no auth objects assigned or checked during access.
3)When I assign custom tcode to test role, I see its not pulling auth objects in PFCG which is what I expected.
***4)However when I assign this custom tcode to 'Display role' which have many standard tcodes in it, I see many of the auth objects "lights turning in to Yellow" (as you know its asking me to maintain value)
5)I checked in SU24/SU22, to see if its pulling any auth objects...no objects are tied to this tcode.
I dont know why this is happening?
Again if I assign to test role, no objects is showing up in PFCG which is what I want!
Any suggestions of to handle this issue, I will really appreciate your thoughts.
Thanks,
AJ

AJ wrote:>
> Hello All- I see a very weird thing with custom TCODE assignment, here is what I see:
> ***4)However when I assign this custom tcode to 'Display role' which have many standard tcodes in it, I see many of the auth objects "lights turning in to Yellow" (as you know its asking me to maintain value)
> 5)I checked in SU24/SU22, to see if its pulling any auth objects...no objects are tied to this tcode.
>
> I dont know why this is happening?
>
> Again if I assign to test role, no objects is showing up in PFCG which is what I want!
>
This is happening not because of the Custom TCodes you have added. The reason are either of the following:
1. In previous cases when some other TCodes (SAP Standard) were added, the the profile regeneration was not carried out by entering Authorization data through "Expert Mode for Profile Generation" (or used with option "Edit Old Status" only). Instead, "Change Authorization Data" was used. And thus the Object proposals for New entries in Menu were not pulled into Profile Generator at that time. Now it's coming. Surely you entered with Expert Mode for Profile Generation --> Read Old status and Merge with New data.
2. Other option can be: Earlier some Objects were changed which were present there only with "Standard" status. It should have been done by copying the Object and change the copied one. Then make the standard one "Inactive".
3. The Inactive Object described in the 2nd point has been Deleted and the object with status "Changed" is left only. Now when you are entering with "Expert Mode for Profile Generation" it's pulling those standard proposals again.
Let me know if the probable reason of Yellow traffic lights are clear to you or need more details.
Regards,
Dipanjan

BI Role with Analysis Auth Object

Hi
How can i use Authorisation Object created in RECADMIN with all the list of Infoproviders in S_RS_COMP and S_RS_COMP1
So that user can perform mentioned action on the data providers mentioned in analysis authorization object.
As i need one place to list all the data targets user can access insted of maintaining in S_RS_COMP and S_RS_COMP1 and in Analysis Authorization object
Thanks in advance

Thanks Everybody for giving suggestions; I really appreciate alll your efforts.
I followed step by step book of kamaljeet and findout that , I was missing to add related info objects of the inforprovider .added those info objects to auth analysis object.
Now query is working fine without errors;
problem is i am not able to restict the query since it showing all the data ; i am trying to put only few values in "0wbs_elemt " .
I added 0wbs_elemt in my analysis auth object;
Clicked on 0wbs_elemt and kept values in value authorizations and also kept wbsh in hierarchy name , selected type 1, HI 0.
still i am unable to restrict the data;
Functinal consultants build WBSE set up on a hierarchy. like
18ICT-07/2011
      18ICT-07/2011-1
            18ICT-07/2011-1-AUDTM
                  18ICT-07/2011-1-AUDTM-01
            18ICT-07/2011-1-CETX_
                  18ICT-07/2011-1-CETX_-01
they want to restrict like if we are giving 181ct-07 then they want to access every thing under it;
same way like 181ct-08 etc etc..
looks like they want to restrict the date very granuler level like restriction on " Attribute Navigation   "
Can anybody please do let me know how can we achieve Navigation Restriction.
Thanks.

RE: Transport of Auth Obj Maintained in SU24

Hi all,
I went in to SU24 and maintianed fields in an auth object of a transaction, then after saving it asked me to create a transport and i did that.
Now i regenerated the role and it pushed the new auth obj/fields in role.
what happens if dont create a transport for the modifications that i did in SU24 for a particular Auth Obj and if i transport that role to TST.
will this automatically update the auth object in SU24 in TST ? or will it just be in role because of the role transport?
thanks,
Sun

Hi,
what happens if dont create a transport for the modifications that i did in SU24 for a particular Auth Obj and if i transport that role to TST.
The changes will reflect in the ROLE in TST ( i guess its the SID of Quality server), however the SU24 in TST won't get updated to reflect whatever you in did in Development System.
will this automatically update the auth object in SU24 in TST ? or will it just be in role because of the role transport?
Yes, it will only be the role transport.
The role will work fine, however this would break the relationship of Auth Objects & Tcode in TST, (when you click on the "Where-Used List" in TST you won't be able to find which Tcode brought that particular auth object in the role.
Regards,
Zaheer

Auth Objects on ME23N

Hi Guys,
I'm trying to find the authorisation objects that control the GRIR information on the Display PO's tcode - ME23N.
I have to seperate roles with ME23N tcode - one shows the GRIR info on the details section and the other not.
Just trying to understand which auth object controls the display and which values to assign to have it displayed or not.
Rgds,
Thinus

I use SU24 to see which auth objects is involved.
The problem I have is that the amounts on the Purchase Order History tab is not showing when I assign one role, but when I assign the other, it does.
I guess what I should do is do a comparison on the auth objects and values with the 2 ME23N's in both roles.
This might give me an indication on the possible differences.
Comments??

Job role design - transaction role and auth object role

Hi all, please kindly comment following job role design:
(1) transaction role:
Keep transactions in single job role to represent business processes in different application areas, e.g.MM: maintain PR, PO, OA. CO: maintain cost center, internal order HR: maintain org structure, personnel management.
The single job role will only keep role menu, object S_TCODE and inactivated all other application related authorization objects.
(2) authorization role
Keep application component related authorzation objects except S_TCODE in single job role by different application area, e.g. Objects of MM_B, MM_E, MM_G in MM role. Objects of K_CCA, K_CSKS_SET in CO role. Objects of HR in HR role.
Then maintain org level of MM, CO, HR roles for different companies, e.g. Company A MM role, company A CO role, company A HR role, company B MM role.;....
User will be assigned transaction role + auth object role. For example, user of company A to perform MM and CO functions will be assigned
with MM transaction role + company A MM role + company A CO role.
Please let me know the pros and cons of above design. Thanks.
Regards,
Donald
* I can see the disadvantage of this design is during SAP upgrade (SU25), revised of authorization object will not reflect in authorization role

Brent Van Dyck wrote:
Keep in mind the project was for an HCM implementation where there's already hardly any connection between tcodes and authorization values so it may have made more sense in that context than it would in a classic SD/MM.
That is correct - but it still exceeds "horrible" beyond imaginable boundaries if you try to split the fields of the objects into different roles and expect it to work or that there will be less roles.
In the case of HCM and also BW the auths admin needs to know more about the data and organization than what classic ERP auths admins can get away with. That is why they take longer to migrate away from manual profiles and have a greater tendency to have manual authorizations inserted into roles - which could however also be achieved by maintaining fields proposed without values and at least proposing those (such as activity type fields) which are known.
But splitting cube / characteristics / key figures or infotype / personel group / auth code into different roles can only go wrong.
Another mistake some "value role experts" sometimes make is that they don't want Su24 proposals in PFCG because they don't understand them. So what they do is that they clean out the SU24 tables completely... Well... the side affect of that is that all SU24 check indicators flagged as "no check" suddenly become alive in their system although there are mostly good reasons not to have the checks active.
Cheers,
Julius

Same Auth Objects CM in su24

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for