Adding another Auth-check to ME28

[Former Member]

Hello All ,

we are planning to add additional authorization check (M_BEST_EKG )for Tcode me28 .

is it advicable to add additonal check for standard tcode.

if we add are there any consequences ?

Or

we can create customized tcode for me28 then include the checks

please advice which is better way of implementing .

Edited by: Julius Bussche on Feb 6, 2009 6:41 PM

Please use meaningfull subject titles in future

[Former Member]

Hi,

It is always recommended to create a custom Z transaction code and impart the objects of the standard tcode. My strict advise is to leave ME28 without any modifications and go with a new transaction code.

The issues that you may see further are while upgrading the SAP system, or installing any security related support patches. If there is a change in the standard transactions, it will create new problems.

Do let me know if you need any other information.

Rgds,

Raghu

-

---

<removed_by_moderator>

Edited by: Julius Bussche on Feb 6, 2009 9:10 AM

[Former Member]

Dear Raghu ,

Please let me know what kind of probelms it may lead .

[Former Member]

>

> It is always recommended to create a custom Z transaction code and impart the objects of the standard tcode. My strict advise is to leave ME28 without any modifications and go with a new transaction code.
> 

I disagree. Why do SAP offer user exits, enhancement points etc in standard transactions? Sometimes a Z transaction is the better option but not always by any means. If there is a user exit/enhancement point available then looking at that first has a wide range of benefits.

If you copy a transaction into a Z tcode then you are still going to have the same problems when it comes to upgrade etc if you don't perform adequate planning and testing.

[Former Member]

Hi Alex,

ME28 and the program associated with it does not have any exits associated with it. So, here it is better to to created a Z copy of ME28 and add the authorization object to that.

Cheers,

Bharath

[Former Member]

Hi Bharath,

Thanks for confirming that, in this situation the choices are rather limited!

[Former Member]

There is already a check for this obejct M_BEST_EKG in me28 .

if we just maintain in su24 will it work?

[pradeepmathewch]

Hi Sagar,

For ME28, there is already a authorisation check proposal for M_EINK_FRG.

May be u can customize it in SU24 according to your need taking full advantage of User Exits/Enhancement spots.

Thanks and regard, Pradeep

[Former Member]

Hello Pradeep ,

As a standard check sap has maintained this object M_EINK_FRG.

we want to maintain one more object M_BEST_EKG for ME28 .

i can see in su24 that sap has already checked this object M_BEST_EKG but not maintained.

do we need to only maintain this checkor we need some other changes to be done

so that when user excutes the program should check for this object M_BEST_EKG

[Former Member]

The check maintain indicator is for SAP to propose the objects when maintaining the authorizations in PFCG.

If you want that your security admin to know the objects that need to be maintained then changing the indicator to C/M will be a good idea.

Even, if the indicator is not set to C/M but only check the authorizations check is surely going to take place. If you find an missing athorization for this object you can then manually assign the object in the role.

[Former Member]

Hi Sagar,

Speak to your development team to see if there are any user exits/enhancement points in the transaction where this additional validation can be added. This way you are not hacking about with standard code and you get to use the original transaction.

[Former Member]

Hi Sagar,

The best way to deal this is to create new "Z" Tcode by coping from ME28 and assign the authorization object (M_BEST_EKG) using SU24 and the object need to be checked and maintained you can maintain the field values which will effect globaly.

Regards,

Lokesh.