cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Allow users to delete own sessions

henning_abel
Participant
0 Kudos

Hi SRM-gurus!

What do you think about this "solution" to allow users to delete their own sessions in SRM Web-UI ?

In PFCG --> Authorizations tab --> Change Authorization Data --> Basis: Administration --> System Authorizations --> Set value: (S_ADMI_FCD) "System administration function: Process administration using trans. SM04, SM50" (activity PADM).

Then the user is able to delete own sessions in SRM Web-UI. I won't give this role access to transactions SM04 and SM50, so even when they log in via SAP LogonPad, they won't be able to start transactions SM04 or SM50.

Do you think this is a practicable solution or do I oversee sth?

Thanks for your help.

Best regards,

Henning

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Henning,

I am curious to know as What do you mean by delete own sessions?Why will a SRM user do that?

I think by adding the Authorization object to the user, there could be a change that the user is able to execute the report attached to the Transaction directly from SE38. I see that the program associated in a executable report and user can very well do that which could be a security lapse.

Regards,

Ramesh.

Edited by: Ramesh Vadamalayan on Jul 1, 2008 8:06 PM

henning_abel
Participant
0 Kudos

Hi Ramesh,

at the moment when users try to log in to SRM Web-UI twice or more there's an error message that they can't delete own sessions.

What we'd like to have is that they have the permission to set the checkmark "Terminate all existing logins" (sorry if that is not the exact wording).

By adding the Authorization object to the role-profile they can set that checkmark.

About your concerns: Users wouldn't have the permission to execute transaction SE38.

Best regards,

Henning

Former Member
0 Kudos

Interesting solution....

Regards,

Ramesh-

henning_abel
Participant
0 Kudos

Only because implementing note 1091844 didn't bring an improvement for us.

Perhaps you can tell me if this works in your system (with or without 1091844).

Thanks.

Regards,

Henning