As default in CRM while Assigning Account to another account the entire account with job and opportunities is moved to that and I'm not able to view in my account.
While sharing only the account details is shared no the job and opportunity. My requirement is while assigning I should have a copy of the account.
Please Help.
So its not entirely clear what you are asking here. So I'm assuming:
You have a security model where records, e.g. accounts, activities, and opportunities are segregated by owner.
You want to assign an account with its child activities and opportunities to another owner. Whilst the original owner still maintains access to the account.
Couple of options:
Change your security model to remove the segregation entirely.
Implemented a security model with a shared team, where users who want to share records assign records to.
After assigning the account, share it with the original user. (This could be manual, or automatic with customisations). However extensive user of sharing can cause performance issues you should look into.
Related
We are designing a BI system, and will provide it to everyone who use this system. In this system, everyone has different permission to view different attributes on different people.
For example, CEO in a company has permission to view every people in his company, and every attributes, like phone or email. But leader of a department can only see people in his company, and some attributes of some people should be hidden, but these attributes of other people can be seen by the leader.
How to design a system to handle this problem? The data to be seen will update at any time, and user want to see these data immediately after update.
In HANA, we have one database user which is shared across 100 users (may not be best practice). We are frequently coming across the situation where user is getting deactivated due to connection attempt with wrong credentials.
Maximum_invalid_connect_attempts are 6. Is it possible to find out last application users or OS users who have tried to connect with wrong credentials?
We are also thinking of increasing Maximum_invalid_connect_attempts and number of users. But before that, is there a way to find application user/OS users trying to connect wrongly?
Best Regards
We have one db user which is shared across 100 users (May not be best practice)
There is no ambiguity here, this is not just "not best practice" it's plain wrong to share a user account across multiple end users. By doing that, you abandon all account related security and the problem you seem to face is a direct consequence of that.
To find out which OS user tried to log on to the system (successful or not) the db auditing needs to be configured. The action that needs to be audited is VALIDATE USER and is available with HANA 2.
You can of course also just disable the whole max_invalid_connect_attempts as you don't seem to worry about DB access security anyway.
I'm currently trying to figure out how to use blockchain in audit trails and potentially in accounting (and if they actually make sense). Both Deloitte and EY mention them.
I somehow cannot understand how this could be of benefit for audits and/or accounting.
To my understanding to make use of the power of blockchains you need multiple users. Only one user means you cannot validate the integrity since all blocks of that user could be compromised (if one block of a blockchain of a user got changed maybe also all of the following where changed, making it impossible to detect the modification). This means blockchains only make sense if you can share them with different users?
Data and thus blockchains however aren't always shared between multiple users. In accounting you often only have one "user"/"owner" of the data. Sure you could create multiple users in one company but there wouldn't be any benefit since they are in one location (company) and potentially all compromised. Or if the admin want's to change something he could easily modify all users making it useless for audits.
To make it work you would need different partners (supplier/customer) to share the information with. In that case you could however only have two users share the same blockchain (depending on legal regulations in your country) and then again who do you trust if one of the two doesn't validate?
Deloitt mentions that they can be used for files. Again I don't see the benefit since you would need multiple users AND files might get compressed with a different algorithm over time rendering them invalid (the useful information didn't change but the block will still be invalid). Or is this a not an issue from your experience? To me it seems it could be a problem.
The same goes for all the internal data which may be important for audits from my point of view. Which company would like to share the information with independent users. Or is it only intendet for "public"/"shared" data?
To identify a modification of one block in a blockchain the user would have ot validate every single block (every hash in the header of a block needs to be compared to the data of the previous block). In terms of accounting a blockchain could be all transactions of one account during one fiscal year. This however could easily be thousands of transactions. Wouldn't this be very slow to validate?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point in terms of audit trails but as long as the users are not independent data can always be modified making it useless for audits. And you need a critical mass to share the blockchain with.
First of all, I think that it's neccesary to get the power of Blockchain. It gives us the chance to create descentralized data bases, i.e. data bases that are not controled by an authority. Also, the data of Blockchain is immutable and permanent, i.e. it can not be modified or deleted. Thanks to it you achive a unique descentralized registry in a distributed network, for example for audit trails.
It's true that it has no sense if you use it inside your company. But if you use it among different companies? Each one could encode its data, so the rest of the companies couldn't see it. However, all the data would be stored in all the companies, so anyone couldn't change it. Moreover, you can have more than one user (node) for each company.
Nowadays, there are many implementations of Blockchain, each one with a different objetive. To understan better the power of Blockchain, I suggest you to wathc the video were is explained the new version (the v 1.0) of the Hyperledger Fabric.
everyone.
My current goal is to develop database structure for web application-based control system of internet-provider. It is a learning task with following requirements:
The administrator registers the subscriber in the system. System provides services list (Telephone, Internet, Cable TV, IP-TV etc) and different subscription plans for each service.
A subscriber can select one or more services with a certain subscription plans for each service. A subscriber has an account and can
replenish the balance. The funds from the account are removed, depending on the selected subscription plans. If the funds on account are insufficient, the system blocks the user.
The system administrator has the rights to:
add, delete or edit the subscription plans;
register, block or unblock the user.
I think, that all words, highlighted with bold are considered to be entities.
I developed following schema:
And now I have few questions:
Is it OK to have different tables for subscriber and account, or should they be merged(one subscriber can only have one account)?
Should current balance be stored as column in the account table, or should it be calculated each time?
Is it OK to have a table with only ID column?
Any critique and suggestions will be appreciated.
They must be merged, because your model allows links "one subscriber - many accounts".
It's depends on your use cases. For optimization you can add trigger on incoming_payment and update subscriber.balance. So you can very quickly build reports.
Table that contains only generated ID looks bad. In your model service must have property type (Telephone, Internet, Cable TV, IP-TV etc).
I am building a web application that will essentially allow authenticated users access to mass amounts of data, but I don't want users to only have read-only access. If there are records missing fields but a user has found information to fill these fields or correct already populated data, I would like the user to be able to do so.
However, I'm worried about mean-spirited folks coming in and simply clearing out records out of sheer boredom and am wondering what the best way to prevent this from happening would be.
My first thought is to have users submit edits, and have a page devoted to batch approvals of these edits after myself or trusted individuals skim over the page. Of course, this would be time consuming (especially as the database grows larger), and I'm curious to know of any better ways to give users editing privileges.
As you are in Rails, there are a number of plugins that provide auditing and versioning of records -
http://github.com/andersondias/acts_as_auditable
http://github.com/laserlemon/vestal_versions
These should let you build something that allows edits but still support reversions in the worst case scenario.
Support rollbacks, like Wikis, to undo malicious edits.