3 ms·

I think most people answered your question without reading it. They must be mind-readers. In my opinion there's only one way to do this. Admins who are all pow

by ejcx 11y ago

I think most people answered your question without reading it. They must be mind-readers. In my opinion there's only one way to do this. Admins who are all powerful, and non-admins. None of this complexity of super-admins, etc. Admins have access to everything. Groups have access to things given to them. Users in more than one group have access to the set of all things their groups have access to. Users without a group are really just users in a group of 1. They have access to things given to them. People who ask for more complicated permissions than this are asking for foot shooting abilities, where people have access to things they don't mean to. The rest is up to UX. Notify other admins when one behaves badly. Confirm admins really did mean to remove themselves from the admin group.

ironchef 11y ago
Unfortunately (and as you know) the world is more complex than this and, in some cases, you will not meet legal requirements. Yes, what you suggested is _a_ best practice; however, I'd suggest some of the more "standard" directions would be (for example) a standard RBAC design (similar to those from NIST or Ferraiolo / Kuhn 1992 or INCITS CS1.1 standards update 2012).
eterm 11y ago
This really doesn't satisfy real world usage. Let's say I'm on github and I have a number of repositories. I want admin access over my area, the power to create and delete repositories. I do not want other people to be able to create and delete repositories. And then I lastly want to be able to have access control over some repositories completely (private repositories). How can you have authorisation that means that I get to sometimes create and delete repositories, that other people can have some permissions for, without having more than 2 levels of authorisation? Just saying "groups" is just hand-waving the question away, all the complexity of role-based vs attribute based authorisation is hidden in "use groups".
ktRolster 11y ago
>In my opinion there's only one way to do this. Admins who are all powerful, and non-admins That's the best way to do it when you can trust your admins, but it violates Sarbanes-Oxley. I've seen some places that literally have a chain-link fence with a pad-lock in their data centers to separate access. Obviously that's suboptimal for efficiency purposes, but anyway.

by ejcx 11y ago

ironchef 11y ago

Unfortunately (and as you know) the world is more complex than this and, in some cases, you will not meet legal requirements. Yes, what you suggested is _a_ best practice; however, I'd suggest some of the more "standard" directions would be (for example) a standard RBAC design (similar to those from NIST or Ferraiolo / Kuhn 1992 or INCITS CS1.1 standards update 2012).

eterm 11y ago

This really doesn't satisfy real world usage. Let's say I'm on github and I have a number of repositories. I want admin access over my area, the power to create and delete repositories. I do not want other people to be able to create and delete repositories. And then I lastly want to be able to have access control over some repositories completely (private repositories). How can you have authorisation that means that I get to sometimes create and delete repositories, that other people can have some permissions for, without having more than 2 levels of authorisation? Just saying "groups" is just hand-waving the question away, all the complexity of role-based vs attribute based authorisation is hidden in "use groups".

ktRolster 11y ago

>In my opinion there's only one way to do this. Admins who are all powerful, and non-admins That's the best way to do it when you can trust your admins, but it violates Sarbanes-Oxley. I've seen some places that literally have a chain-link fence with a pad-lock in their data centers to separate access. Obviously that's suboptimal for efficiency purposes, but anyway.