I have a tenant admin account for a SharePoint online tenant. I am tasked with looking at all the sites on the tenant and all the SharePoint groups on each site. Getting a list of sites is easy using PNP libraries (Get-PnPTenantSite). My next step is to loop through each site and get all the security groups associated with each site - also easy using Get-PnPGroup commandlet.
The problem I'm running into is that my tenant admin is not added to some sites - not Site Admin, Not Site Owner, not even Site Reader - and so when my script executes against one of these sites, I'm getting a 403 Forbidden when asking for the groups on the site. Yes, I could avoid this by just adding my tenant admin as an owner on every single site in the tenant, and could probably even do this using a fairly simple powershell script.
However, my question is, why is this necessary? Shouldn't I be able to just run a script with some kind of "tenant admin super-read-permissions" or something that will just temporarily give me all access to everything without having to go through the middle step of adding myself everywhere?
Depending on the needs of your business with SharePoint, it may seem like an unnecessary or extra layer of security. After all, why not allow an administrator to access all the things?
The answer lies in the fact that SharePoint security is designed to allow separation of roles. These roles may not necessarily match exactly how responsibilities are defined in your company.
From Microsoft:
Global Administrators and SharePoint Administrators don't have
automatic access to all sites and each user's OneDrive, but they can
give themselves access to any site or OneDrive.
See https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint/sharepoint-admin-role
Tenant admins have several responsibilities:
Create sites
Delete sites
Manage sharing settings at the organization level
Add and remove site admins
Manage site storage limits
To perform these responsibilities, very little access to the actual sites and their content is required.
Management of access to a site collection and its content is the responsibility of the site collection administrator and site owners.
It sounds like in your company, you wear both hats. You might be creating and deleting sites, and also getting involved in access control or auditing at the site collection level. In these cases, you must use the privilege of the tenant admin (e.g., add and remove site admins) to grant yourself the site collection privileges required to access the information you need.
I recommend not granting yourself these privileges forever. It is helpful to consider that having constant administrative access to all sites is undesirable for a few reasons. For instance:
Search is supposed to be filtered to content that is relevant to the user. If the user is an admin with access to all content, search will not be filtered in a useful way.
While an administrator may certainly grant themselves access to a site, some collaborators would prefer that their content remain private to their team until or unless they require technical support.
All of this addresses the "why" part of your question. As for the technical question, there is currently no "tenant admin super-read-permissions" role that you can use for the data you want to collect.
Related
I scrolled through the documentation of KeyCloak and also set it on my machine to explore.
I also explored fine-grained permissions however I didn't get much detail in documentation around the n-level of nested hierarchies.
Here https://www.keycloak.org/docs/latest/server_admin/ this talks about limiting an admin user to particular client management, however, I want certain users, within the client, to be able to create accounts but with scopes and attributes limited to what's assigned to themselves.
For an example:
For a client(ERP>Transactions) we want to create an Org(our customer) Admin who in return will create teams and team admins. Team admins shall be able to invite their teammates in there.
Now I just want to know if only Keycloak can be used to make sure a user in one Org shouldn't be able to create a user in some other org, in the same way, a team admin shouldn't be able to onboard/invite a user in some other team.
Because if Keycloak in principle can't handle this, our team will start writing custom logic in our application code base for this.
You all are familiar with the ability to share a Google Doc with certain people, and provide those people with the ability to view, or edit.
I'm trying to understand how such an architecture would be organized in a REST Api.
For instance, for my document I want to grant read access to:
myself
some#email.com
users who belong to domain.com (everybody who belong to my network)
I'd like to give write access to:
myself
another#email.com
In addition, users with the role of admin also have write access regardless of the permission I define, and users with the role moderator have read access regardless of the permission I define.
What would be the ideal (or best practice) architecture for such a thing? Where would I deligate permissions? On the document itself? Would I have another model handling permissions? How would I create the complex rule-based system where access is granted based on a specific email, a broader domain affiliation, and an even broader site-wide roles.
I can imagine a situation where each document has field for different permissions. For instance:
owner: my id
admin: all the site's admins
moderator: all the site's moderators
viewers: a list of emails / domains
editors: a list of emails / domains
But, is this scalable?
I'd love to get some advice.
Thanks!
I created a new AAD user without any special permissions (no admin, just a user). Now, when I login using the Connect-MSOLService cmdlet and retrieve all users using Get-MSOLUser I can see every user within that directory.
Why and am I able to change that?
Background: I want to use a single AAD instance for multiple SAAS applications and want to prevent that a user can browse all users.
Actually, there is a way to disable user browsing in an AAD using the Set-MsolCompanySettings from the MSOnline module:
Set-MsolCompanySettings -UsersPermissionToReadOtherUsersEnabled $false
In Azure AD, Users and groups are created in a flat structure without OU and GPO. You can't restrict the user's permission to a specific scope. The user can view all the user information in Azure AD.
To isolate the users from different scopes, you can create multiple directories for Azure AD, and configure the SaaS applications as multi-tenant application for AAD.
You can refer to the article below for more details about Azure AD Directory role.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/active-directory-assign-admin-roles
If you connect to an Active Directory you usually want to read some data. As such if you're authorized to do that you can easily access information that is available and particularly "sensitive" (e.g. you can't read private keys of user objects easily). If you look at the history of Active Directory and it's typical usage within companies, it's likely that only single tenant (company) using it at a given time. As such there were even less reason to restrict the access.
If you want to have multiple tenants use the same AD you will have to figure out a scheme that works for you and setup the proper permissions yourself.
Helpful articles for this could be:
Build a multi-tenant SaaS web application using Azure AD & OpenID Connect
Question: Creating a multi-tenant AD environment
I have a small question related to granting access to multiple sites in Sitecore 7.5.
Let's say I have a website named as website_1 and another website named as website_2 in my Sitecore environment. Now I have created two roles. One role named as r_website_1 gives access to website_1 and another role r_website_2 gives access to website_2.
In r_website_1, only access to website_1 is granted and access to website_2 is denied. The same goes for r_website_2 but for
website_2.
Now I want to give read and write access to user_1 for both websites. What I did was went to User Manager>user_1>Edit>Member Of and then assigned both roles.
What I noticed that the user_1 only gets access to one website. it seems that both roles are countering each another. For example, the denied permission for website_2 in r_website_1 is conflicting with allowed permission for website_2 in r_website_2.
May I know what's the fix for this problem?
Thanks in advance,
Vaibhav
Deny permission always has priority. You cannot remove by simply adding another role with allow access rights.
Instead of using deny you should break the inheritance of chosen access right for the role1 for site2 and similarly for the role2 for site1.
Here is a quote from Sitecore Administrator Security Cookbook:
We recommend that you use inheritance whenever possible to limit the access that roles have to the items in Sitecore. Using inheritance instead of directly denying access rights to items makes it easier to manage the security system.
And you can read about breaking inheritance of access rights in Assign access rights to a security account document.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terms, but I've been Googling for two days and just can't find anything on this: grouping roles/permissions. Or maybe I don't quite understand membership in the ASP.Net model.
Currently I have a homegrown authentication system in a PHP site, with users, permissions, and roles. Each role (such as "User" or "Technician") is made up of individual permissions (such as "Add New User" or "Close Ticket"). The site is MVC-based, so when the controller action is called, it looks for a basic permission. If not found, it displays an unauthorized page. When it searches for permissions, it looks inside the role groups. However, a user can be a part of the "User" role and have additional permissions without being part of another role.
How would that translate over to MVC2?
The website has a database tables for the user, user_to_permissions, user_to_roles, permissions, roles, and roles_to_permissions. I think the relationships are pretty self-explanatory. I think I'll need to maintain my own database tables for the users, so I'll have custom forms to add/update their info, and obviously a custom login routine.
Can this even work?
RoleProvider "roles" are really just permissions. You can roll them up and present them however you like in your UI (see, for example, AzMan and AuthorizationStoreRoleProvider), but that's up to you. They're not really hierarchical.