Focal Point
Report Level Security ??!!

This topic can be found at:
https://forums.informationbuilders.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7971057331/m/5731009331

September 30, 2005, 04:51 PM
Balram Vedavyas
Report Level Security ??!!
I have created a custom dashboard for a group and a certain domain. The custom dashoard is launched from an ASP page that extracts windows authentication informaion and passes it to the MRE.

NOTE that the dashboard itself has an HTML page to launch reports based on user preferences.

Is there a way to allow access to individual reports to only a small group of users in a domain based on the windows user ID. For example
a)Report A to be available to users A, D and E
b)Report B to be available to users B, C, E and F

where reports A and B are a subset of the reports in the given domain.

One way to do that would be to have 2 more domains defined with the respective users. But that becomes an overkill when there are too many such reports that need restricted access to one or two users - I'll also have to create individual HTML launch pages for them.
October 01, 2005, 07:17 PM
dhagen
Belram,

I would suggest you contact doc services, and inquire about MRE administration using a DBMS. This is where all the user/group/access stuff is stored in a DBMS instead of the standard MRE/HTML file system. I have heard - but haven't confirmed for myself - that the DBMS implementation allows controlled acess to the report level. In other words, it should be able to support the problem you are describing.

Hope this helps.
October 03, 2005, 09:28 PM
<Jim Thorstad - WF Product Mgt.>
The MR authorization model (53x, 71x, internal, rdbms) does not allow for user-based access lists of reports. It only allows for the user-group-domain and group-role_tree models described in the documentation.

There is a proof-of-concept model where an rdbms table can be read to determine a list of reports per user but this is not productized. If you would like to discuss this contact me via email.
October 05, 2005, 08:11 PM
Balram Vedavyas
DHagen/Jim,

Thanks for your inputs. Jim, I would surely like to continue discussion on the proof-of-concept model.

Balram