TM1 Forum

Just realize that in 9.4, the export as text is only available for Admin group users. It's tough for users who are so used to using export features in pre 9.4. Any idea is this a 'enhanced security' feature in 9.4/5 ? Or has this been raised as a bug ?

It has been raised as a bug but I believe IBM see this as an "security enhancement". So it is probably unlikely that this will ever be "fixed".

Workaround: create a generic TI process capable of exporting from any cube with parameters for cube name, view name and export file.

lotsaram wrote:It has been raised as a bug but I believe IBM see this as an "security enhancement". So it is probably unlikely that this will ever be "fixed".

I've got an open SR on that for 9.5; didn't notice it in 9.4. If it's an "enhancement", though, one would think that it should be in the release notes (which I searched before submitting the SR). And if it is intentional I'd like to know who came up with such a boneheaded idea, given that as you've pointed out there's at least one workaround, and another would be to create a view with all dims as columns. In other words it improves security not one iota, and merely gets in the way of legitimate use.

Indeed, when I put it that way it almost sounds like Microsoft's idea of an "enhancement".

Indeed. I don't see any security issue at stake over here. A TM1 client only has access to TM1 objects, metadata and data to which he/she is entitled in the security setup. Moreover, it existed in previous versions for non Admin users.

Wim

Wim Gielis wrote:Indeed. I don't see any security issue at stake over here. A TM1 client only has access to TM1 objects, metadata and data to which he/she is entitled in the security setup. Moreover, it existed in previous versions for non Admin users.

Wim

Totally agreed!

I didn't noticed this (as I have been running as admin group most of the time) until a users raised this as an issue.

Just heard back from Support; apparently this was just a bug and not intentional (which, in this instance, is a good thing). It'll be fixed on 9.4 SP4. Haven't heard about the fix in 9.5 yet but if they're fixing it in 9.4 I imagine it'll be done in 9.5 at some point as well. Will post if I get further details on that.

Alan Kirk wrote:Just heard back from Support; apparently this was just a bug and not intentional (which, in this instance, is a good thing). It'll be fixed on 9.4 SP4. Haven't heard about the fix in 9.5 yet but if they're fixing it in 9.4 I imagine it'll be done in 9.5 at some point as well. Will post if I get further details on that.

It will be in 9.5.1, or more precisely what will be officially described as 9.5.1 notwithstanding that the existing updated release is 9.5.100.2380. (Which is what I have installed on our test platform, and saw the problem in.)

That's good news. I think I reported this back with 9.4.0 and never having had an update had pretty much given up on this one.