A complicated role construct
Integrate S_TABU_NAM into a Permission Concept
From the result of the statistical usage data, you can see which transactions (ENTRY_ID) were used, how often (COUNTER), and how many different users. There are various indications from this information. For example, transactions that were used only once by a user within 12 months could indicate a very privileged user, or inadvertently invoking a transaction for which a user has permissions. The future assignment of such transactions in the SAP role concept should then be critically questioned. In contrast, you should consider transactions with a high level of usage and a large user circle (e.g. with more than ten users) in an SAP role concept.
Running the system trace for permissions gradually for each application server is tedious. We will show you how to record permission checks on multiple servers at the same time. If you want to use the System Trace for permissions in a system with multiple application servers, you should note that the Trace can only log and evaluate data per application server at any time. Therefore, if a permission error occurs, permission administrators must first check which application server the user is logged on to with the permission issue and then start the trace on that application server. We give you a guide to record permissions checks on certain application servers, but we also show you a way to use this feature centrally.
Customizing
The security check also shows when no redesign is necessary because the authorizations found are compatible with the current concept. The checks allow incorrect authorizations to be identified and rectified without a redesign.
In the SU53 you get the entry of the user that is stored there, and this may be old. So it is better to let the user himself display the authorization error via the menu. Maybe you create a small docu for all your users how to display the error and where to send it, so a "Cooking Recipe: How To...". In the SU53 error excerpt, the first thing that is displayed is the authorization that the user is missing. So this object has to be analyzed. In the further part of the error message, the permissions assigned to the user are displayed. This information can be used to classify the user with his role set, where he belongs etc. Finally, in our case 1, we now have the missing authorization and must now clarify whether the user should receive this authorization or not. In addition the specialist department must be contacted, which has to decide whether the user receives the permission! It can happen that the problem reported by the user is not an authorization problem at all. Then the last authorization error is displayed in the SU53 area, which is not the cause of the error at all. Therefore, it is always good to have a screen image of the actual error message sent to you as well. It is not uncommon for developers to issue an authorization error of the type "No authorization for..." from their programs, but they have not checked this with a standard authorization check at all, so that the error is not an actual authorization error.
The possibility of assigning authorizations during the go-live can be additionally secured by using "Shortcut for SAP systems".
The future assignment of such transactions in the SAP role concept should then be critically questioned.
If you want to know more about SAP authorizations, visit the website www.sap-corner.de.
Open the proof of use via the button and a pop-up window appears for querying usage modes (for example, using the affected authorization object in programmes or classes).