CREATE POLICY table_policy
ON organisation
TO role_A
USING (id IN (SELECT organisation_id
FROM org_user_map_table
WHERE user_id = current_setting('app.current_user_id')::uuid));
The current RLS policy restricts users ensuring them to view data related to their own organisation.
I am now facing issue while INSERTing a new org into the Database where it throws error saying according to the above policy restriction, since no such organisation_ids are available for the user in the org_user_map_table the operation is not permitted. So, I cannot INSERT the new organisation, let alone access it at a later point.
While a suggestion for adding new roles and policies to perform INSERTS could be added, I have to work with the existing system and I am not sure how to split the policy differently for SELECTS and INSERTS.
Since you didn't explicitly specify it, you created the policy FOR ALL statements. If you need different conditions for, say, INSERT and SELECT, create two policies instead:
CREATE POLICY table_policy_sel ON organisation
FOR SELECT
TO role_A
USING (...);
CREATE POLICY table_policy_ins ON organisation
FOR INSERT
TO role_A
WITH CHECK (...);
The condition for the FOR INSERT policy can be different from the one FOR SELECT.
Related
In SQL Server, I have a table where after a row has been inserted, several of the columns never need to be changed (yes it's possible this might change in the future, but unlikely or will be a rare event). I know that SQL server has column level permissions, and so I wanted to deny updated on these columns for all users, role, current and present. The T-SQL looks something like this:
DENY UPDATE ON dbo.<Table>(<Column1>,<Columns2>,etc) TO ______
However it appears that using this command, you have to always specify a user or role at the end. Is there a way to have it apply to all users current and future?
And yes, I AM WELL AWARE I can use a trigger to throw an error if the columns are changed after an update, or apply the DENY command to all existing users and roles and create a procedure for creating new users and roles that would create the new user/role and automatically apply the update, etc.
Before I consider any of those options, I would see if the DENY Update to all Users option can be done.
Thanks you!
Enrole all your SQL users in a default role, so that you can do a DENY on that role. For the future one, create a DDL trigger that fire CREATE USER and add it as a member of this role.
I'm new to Postgres' RLS feature. I believe I'm following the documentation appropriately, but am getting unexpected behavior. Consider the following case:
i have a table named report_files
this table has a simple policy, policy <name> for all using (true)
the user has grant all permissions on the table (grant all on all tables in schema testing to testuser;, along with grant execute on all functions ... and grant usage for the schema as well)
the user can now read all fields in the table, but cannot insert records, against expectation
Here's a really short snippet from psql demonstrating the aforementioned: https://gist.github.com/cdaringe/85dd9a7b1278afe4770869dc494216f3
I have set a permissive policy, which clearly evaluates OK as evidenced by the successful select command.
What can I troubleshoot to get the insert to work?
Thanks!
ERROR: permission denied for sequence report_files_id_seq
It looks to me like you need to grant your user permission to use the id sequence: report_files_id_seq
You should be able to do this with the following
GRANT USAGE, SELECT ON SEQUENCE report_files_id_seq TO testuser;
Or to bulk add all tables:
GRANT USAGE, SELECT ON ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA <insert schema name here>
ALL is equivalent to USAGE, SELECT, UPDATE
As I cannot comment yet, I will add some input as an answer if anyone arrives on this thread like me today.
Yes, you have to grant permissions on sequence(s) separately, in addition to the privileges already granted on the table(s). In fact it is what you have to do.
Even if your table is dependant on the sequence object, they are both different objects from the RDBMS point of view, so they require distinct privileges.
As for your indices example, index in a sub-object of a table, and no additional privilege is required to be able to make use of indices so no further action than the index creation is needed.
Moreover, be careful to prefix the sequence name in case it is stored in a schema which is not the default one (public) and which is not in your search_path.
If that is not the case, you may encounter a permission denied error even though you have all necessary privilege on the sequence you aim to work with.
The goal is to allow all the "Teachers" that have access to the Faculty table to have Select permissions to only their own social security number and not everybody elses. Do any of you know how I can perform something like this? I do have all my users setup as Windows Users and I have a windows group called Teachers, if that helps.
Not possible using the standard permissions in SQL server (that I am aware of)
You will need to implement this kind of constraint in your code.
You could in theory pass in the SS# and query based on this and raise an error if they do not match.
Social security numbers shoud be encrypted so they can't see each others numbers if they call up the record. You can use a decryption proc to allow them to decrypt that checks the userid against the profile id and will only decrypt if they match.
Implementing Row-level Permissions
Row-level permissions are used for applications that store information in a single table. Each row has a column that defines a differentiating parameter, such as a user name, label or other identifier. You then create parameterized stored procedures, passing in the appropriate value. Users can see only rows that match the supplied value.
The following steps describe how to configure row-level permissions based on a user or login name.
Create the table, adding an additional column to store the name.
Create a view that has a WHERE clause based on the user name column. This will restrict the rows returned to those with the specified value. Use one of the built-in functions to specify a database user or login name. This eliminates the need to create different views for different users.
' Returns the login identification name of the user.
WHERE UserName = SUSER_SNAME()
' USER_NAME or CURRENT_USER Return the database user name.
WHERE UserName = CURRENT_USER()
Create stored procedures to select, insert, update, and delete data based on the view, not the base tables. The view provides a filter that restricts the rows returned or modified.
For stored procedures that insert data, capture the user name using the same function specified in the WHERE clause of the view and insert that value into the UserName column.
Deny all permissions on the tables and views to the public role. Users will not be able to inherit permissions from other database roles, because the WHERE clause is based on user or login names, not on roles.
Grant EXECUTE on the stored procedures to database roles. Users can only access data through the stored procedures provided.
Hi Experts
How I can prevent database user deleting any data in tables using triggers?
I want just Admin delete Data from tables
Thanks
Umm take away that users permission? If you don't want them doing something, 'disallow' them that right... thats why we have permissions.
Here are details on how to revoke permissions:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms186308.aspx
Any particular reason you want to use triggers?
You could simply remove the DELETE permission from the users you want to restrict. Have a look at the "Permissions" section here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189835.aspx
EDIT: Since you say you do want to use triggers (but I really think you should reconsider) you can create a table such as:
CREATE TABLE Restricted_Users
(
user_name VARCHAR(40) PRIMARY_KEY -- Use a size appropriate to your requirements
)
Create INSTEAD OF DELETE triggers on all your tables (that's going to be a chore) which checks for the USER_NAME() in the Restricted_Users table and if they EXIST you can call RAISERROR to cause the transaction to be rolled back and display a message to the user.
Remember you will have to maintain these triggers on all new tables added to the database as well as maintaining the list of users in the Restricted_Users table whenever you add/remove users from the database.
It would be a lot simpler to use the permission system available in SQL Server (it's what it's designed for) using roles with appropriate permissions set for the tables. Then, when adding new users you only have to assign them to the appropriate role and the delete permissions are handled for you.
Name Dept ID
MARK XYZ 25
DENIM ABC 35
SOLO DEF 45
The above is my table.Here when the update is done, a trigger will be executed to get the old values and store that in a existing log table with the updated USERID and here my requirements is when a delete operation is performed i need to perform the trigger operation that should update the same log table with the old values.When it stores in the log table i have a USERID field in log table and that should be updated with current(Deleting User ID) USERID in the log table.
The answer depends on the authentication mode. If you want an audit log that is written by a trigger to show the identity of the user who deletes a given row, the identity of that user must be known within the scope of the trigger. There are two ways for the identity to be known: the SQL engine itself can be aware of a user it has authenticated, or the front-end client software can pass the username to a stored procedure that is handling the deletion. If it is the latter the stored procedure will have to update the row in the base table with the current user value before it deletes the row.
It is often the case the many real individuals will authenticate with the client software (or on the network) individually but the connection to the SQL engine is via a shared pseudo-user that might correspond to a permission level (e.g. clerical-user, manager-user). The database sees that the record is being updated by "clericaluser" rather than by "joe". So then the database authentication may be insufficient for your auditing purposes, and you need to pass "joe" to a stored procedure.
The SQL engine can be (but need not be) integrated with network authentication, in which case the trigger will have access to the authenticated user identity, e.g. YOURDOMAIN\YourUser.
Guess you will find what(?) you are looking for here:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189799.aspx