I have a custom field in the Salesforce User object. I am trying to work out permissions. I only want the User's manager and System Admins to be able to see this field.
Looking at the field-level security options, I see: Contract Manager. I worry that if I check this, ALL contract managers will be able to see this field. Is that the case?
Is there an easy way to accomplish this security policy and test it in a sandbox where I am not allowed to have many users?
You are correct, if you allow the Contract Manager profile to view that field via Field-Level Security, then ALL users assigned to that profile will be able to see the field, regardless of whether or not the user actually rolls up to them.
You should be able to show/hide this field based on some more advanced logic by embedding a small VF page into the User page layout. This will still require you to make the field visible via Field-Level Security, however, and will not allow you to hide it from other managers if they have access to the API (it would only be hidden from them on the page).
Making the field visible to contract manager will make it visible to all contract managers. However, there is a fairly simple formula that will allow you to enforce this securely.
1) make secret field not visible to contract managers.
2) Create a hierarchical relationship to the contract manager on user.
3) Create a formula that checks if the running user is the contract manager of the user you are looking at.
IF($user.id == user.contract_manager__c,secret_field__c,'only this users contract manager can see this.')
Related
I'm currently working on a project where a user can have many roles, and each role has assigned one or many permissions. Permissions describe the actions that a user can apply to ressources. For example let's consider that I have three ressources that I can interact with using my API : users, books, payments.
I'd like to have all users able to update their personal informations like phone number... etc. This led me to give update permission on user's ressource for all users. But the problem is that I want them to be able to updates their own profiles only. Furthermore, some users have admin permissions and can change other users permissions, therefor they have another kind of update permission on user's resource.
So my question is : what's the best way to design the permission table. Below you can find my schema design. Thank you for your answers in advance.
User(firstName string, lastName string, roles Role[])
Role(name string, description string, permissions Permission[])
Permission(name string, effect 'Allow' | 'Deny', resource string, action string)
Well I am not entirely sure what you meant by resource and action. If you meant URI template and HTTP method, then ok. Otherwise you might need a different solution or somehow add parameters to your design if you want to allow or deny individual resources per id.
If we are talking about a REST API, which I assume, then you can do something like PATCH /api/v1/current-user/profile {...} for updating your profile and PATCH /api/v1/users/{user-id}/profile {...} to update somebody else's profile. If you meant controller classes and their methods, then you can do the same with two different controllers, something like CurrentUser.partialUpdate(params) and User.partialUpdate(params).
As of updating user permissions, I wonder how to do it, because you can update only role permissions and give or take away roles for the users in your model.
Another thing I don't understand that why do you need the allow|deny flags. If roles collide because users can have multiple roles or permissions collide, because you can both allow and deny the same thing, then how do you resolve it without a hierarchy? And if you don't have a hierarchy, then this flag is completely useless and just deny all and allow what is added to the role.
As of the one user multiple roles approach it is not a great idea, at least in places where people take security seriously a single account or at least a single session can have only a single role. Since this would make a lot of repetition I would solve this on a role level and make composite roles or support role inheritance. So for example the Administrator role would be the composite of the OwnProfileEditor and ProfileEditor sub-roles, which I would rather call Features or Capabilities or PermissionGroups rather than Roles.
Usually RBAC is not that flexible, so people tend to add per User Permissions to override Role Permissions. I would not do it, because you will end up with a mess if you follow that approach.
I have created an integration profile CORE_AKTANA_DI through which data for objects will be loaded into my Salesforce instance through a third-party user. I have provided "View All" permission for all objects to that profile. However, since this is a global Salesforce org, hence, there is data for other countries as well in this instance.
I want the user with the profile to see only data of France i.e with country "FR". In this case, my only choice is to:
Remove the "View All" permission of the profile from all objects.
Give the user a role such as "FR-Corp".
Create sharing rules for all objects with "Private" OWD and share with this role.
The problem is that since this is an integration profile, I cannot assign a role to the user with this profile. Also, it is not plausible to create sharing rules since there are a lot of objects with private OWD.
Same problem occurs by assigning the user to a public group, i.e a lot of sharing rules need to be created.
In this case, please suggest me the easiest possible options.
Actually, how to solve your issue is dependent on business process you are trying to implement. There are few ways:
sharing by hierarchy: setting proper roles and checking 'grant access using hierarchy'
sharing rules: setting proper sharing rules, owner/criteria based
manual sharing: using button
sharing using apex: using share object of any corresponding object
I think, this document will be useful for you.
I don't think what you say is correct:
"The problem is that since this is an integration profile, I cannot assign
a role to the user with this profile."
In my org we have a few integration connections. Each connection is anchored by a SF user license which has both Role and Profile. You should likely give the integration it's own user license and name the user something like "Integration (Fr)" Set the Roll up with appropriate hierarchy position, permissions and sharing rules and once you've done all the token resets needed set as API login only & password never expires. That should do it unless I'm missing something.
I am building a hybrid mobile app using AngularJS and Ionic as front-end.
Each user belongs to an organisation. But it is possible to change which organisation a user belongs to on the server and in a different web application.
The user can do some things in the web app:
Get data about the organisation
Post, put and delete data about the organisation
Each of these requires an API call to get the relevant information.
Now my question is, when and how should I check which organisation the user belongs to?
Should I send an API call before every get, post, put and delete to check which organisation the user belongs to?
If yes, then what it a nice way to organize this organisation checking without having it tangle up all my other code?
It sounds like what you're trying to get at is permissions for the user to edit, etc. the organization only when they belong to it. That should be done server-side for the following reasons:
It keeps the access control coupled to the operation, so the server can prevent disallowed reads/changes even if there's a bug in the client.
It stops malicious users from bypassing the membership check altogether, which they can do if the client is all that's enforcing the rules.
It avoids the API calls you're worried about that constantly need to recheck the user's membership, as well as the race conditions if membership changes between the check and the next call.
It handles both your Ionic client and your other web client, and lets you expand to more clients in the future, without each having to duplicate the checking logic.
Similarly, it lets you modify your permissioning logic in one place, for example if you wanted to differentiate users who can read the organization from admins who can edit it.
Once the server is solid, there are only a few places you'll need to sync the user's memberships:
At app startup, unless you keep a cache from the last use and that's good enough.
On some schedule as they use the app, if memberships change frequently enough that you want to sync quickly. Perhaps whenever they visit their list of organizations.
When the user does something in the app to invalidate the cache, like join or leave an organization.
When an API call about an organization fails, because the user may no longer be a member.
Logical Question
Backend implementation
I am implementing User Management Module in Web application. I have three table User, Role and UserInterce. The user table has ManyToMany relationship with role table and Role table has ManyToMany relationship with User Interface table. So whenever Server return user object, the system will verify it's role and that role has access right to which user interface.
this is background overview of backend implementation.
Front End implementation
Whenever user login into the system,server will return user object. I want to implement access control in form basis. e.g. emp role do not have access right to add button where admin role has access right to add button. To implement form based access control i would require to create another table at server side which has information about ui fields and that will be has relationshiop with User Interface table.
can some one provide better way of doing same thing logically ?
If you don't need to have possibility to edditing role's permissions in runtime, the best way is to use spring JSP tag library and build your frontend using spring security tags
http://docs.spring.io/spring-security/site/docs/3.0.x/reference/taglibs.html
Otherwise, using some table for storing your permisssions is the only option to do that
I'd like to create visualforce page that inserts a record into salesforce account object. However, I expect some of the page users won't have salesforce accounts. Can they still access it? If not, what are the alternatives that can be used to visualforce page in this case? (Please don't consider Web to Lead Forms).
Thanks,
Yes, it's possible. Go read about Salesforce Sites. For a start:
http://wiki.developerforce.com/page/Websites
http://wiki.developerforce.com/page/An_Introduction_to_Force.com_Sites
(of course it's also possible to write that page in say Java/.NET/PHP and use integration via SOAP or REST to talk to Salesforce... but these 2 main links will keep the whole solution within SF so no need to need to learn new language, have extra maintenance effort etc)
Sites are VF pages that expose a bit of your company's data without need to log in. You can use them to input data too, just remember that in theory anybody could learn the link and spam you (not too different from web2lead, inbound email handlers etc). You specify security in a way similar to Profiles, the records will have "Created By = {site name} Guest User".
I don't think there's anything out of the box to restrict visibility, they're open to whole world. So if you would want something similar to login IP ranges (so only sales reps from your office's network can enter data) - you might have to write some logic in the controller.