Field Level Access 10.0.700.4

Yahoo Archive
1
When I called Epicor about this (probably last year) they would not provide a one off, saying it is fixed in 10.1

Very pathetic considering this is security. We were hiding labor rates and other fields using this feature and then it didn't work anymore. I guess it goes to show test everything before deploying, even something as import as security that shouldn't have any bugs before the software is released.


From: "Jose Gomez jose@... [vantage]" <vantage@yahoogroups.com>
To: Vantage <vantage@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 3:55 PM
Subject: [Vantage] Field Level Access 10.0.700.4



Is Field Security totally broken in E10? We have a particular need to remove 2 fields form ANYONE except admin having access to seeing the data. I set default access to NONE, and everyone can still see it... I set individual user access to NONE and everyone can still see it.....

Table OrderDtl.... or OrderDtl_UD ( we tried testing with other fields  SellingQty being one of them for tests)
Everyone was still able to see and modify said fields...

Ideas?

Jose C Gomez
Software Engineer


T: 904.469.1524 mobile

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?




2
Is Field Security totally broken in E10? We have a particular need to remove 2 fields form ANYONE except admin having access to seeing the data. I set default access to NONE, and everyone can still see it... I set individual user access to NONE and everyone can still see it.....

Table OrderDtl.... or OrderDtl_UD ( we tried testing with other fields  SellingQty being one of them for tests)
Everyone was still able to see and modify said fields...

Ideas?

Jose C Gomez
Software Engineer


T: 904.469.1524 mobile

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
3
Yes Jose, We see the same problem.
4
I called Epicor on this and they said it was a known bug and fixed in a later version.  I have yet to test it on 10.1.
5
How can they ship the product like this.... I mean I understand other stuff... but this is security..... SIGH Is there a one off?


Jose C Gomez
Software Engineer


T: 904.469.1524 mobile

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:56 PM, don.n.doan@... [vantage] <vantage@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 
<div>
  
  
  <p>Yes Jose, We see the same problem.</p>

</div>
 


<div style="color:#fff;min-height:0;"></div>

6
Thanks Don


Jose C Gomez
Software Engineer


T: 904.469.1524 mobile

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 4:11 PM, don.n.doan@... [vantage] <vantage@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 
<div>
  
  
  <p>From what I recall I do not think so. Â </p><div><br></div><div>Just an FYI, it works fine in 10.1.400.15</div><p></p>

</div><span class="ygrps-yiv-1555830462">
 


<div style="color:#fff;min-height:0;"></div>


7
From what I recall I do not think so.  

Just an FYI, it works fine in 10.1.400.15

I ended up abandoning the field security and made customizations that completely blocked the data. Either that or BPMs out the wazoo.
8
Yeah problem is we need them gone form BAQ's too... I guess I could do a BPM for BAQ... but that seems like the wrong way to approach this.


Jose C Gomez
Software Engineer


T: 904.469.1524 mobile

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 4:14 PM, don.n.doan@... [vantage] <vantage@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 
<div>
  
  
  <p><span class="ygrps-yiv-746540"><span style="color:rgb(63,63,63);">From what I recall I do not think so. Â </span></span></p><div style="color:rgb(63,63,63);"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(63,63,63);">Just an FYI, it works fine in 10.1.400.15</div><div style="color:rgb(63,63,63);"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(63,63,63);">I ended up abandoning the field security and made customizations that completely blocked the data. Either that or BPMs out the wazoo.</div><p></p>

</div><span class="ygrps-yiv-746540">
 


<div style="color:#fff;min-height:0;"></div>