SAP Security & Authorization

SAP Security & Authorization

SAP Gold Partner · Role Design · SoD · GRC · Audit Support

SAP Security & Authorisation

Weak SAP security is the most common finding in every external audit of an SAP landscape — and the one finding that takes the longest to remediate after it's discovered. Excessive authorisations, undetected segregation of duties conflicts, shared user IDs, unchecked firefighter access and misconfigured Basis parameters are not abstract compliance risks; they are operational exposures that enable fraud, data loss and audit failure. 2iSolutions designs, implements and audits SAP security across S/4HANA, Business One and BTP — covering role design, authorisation concept, SoD analysis, GRC implementation and ongoing access governance.

SAP GoldPartner — GRC & Security certified practice
ITILAccess management integrated in AMS
Audit-ReadySOD remediation before external audit
21 yrsSAP authorisation & governance experience
The Real Risk

What SAP security gaps actually look like — and what they enable

Security issues in SAP are rarely dramatic until they're discovered in an audit or after an incident. These are the six most common gaps — and what they enable when left unaddressed.

Gap Found in Landscape
Risk It Enables
Access Gap

Multiple users share one SAP login — single generic ID used by entire accounts team

Risk

Fraud cannot be attributed to an individual — audit trail is useless; no accountability for posted transactions

SoD Conflict

The same user can create a vendor master and also process payment to that vendor

Risk

Classic vendor fraud — fictitious vendor created and paid without requiring a second approver at any step

Over-Privileged

Production users carry SAP_ALL or S_A.CUSTOMIZ profile from an old implementation project

Risk

Any user with these profiles can change configuration, delete master data, modify transport management — audit finding always raised as critical

Debug Access

ABAP debug with replace authorisation (S_DEVELOP with ACTVT 02) assigned to non-developer users

Risk

User can bypass SAP authorisation checks at runtime — any access restriction can be overridden; critical finding in every security audit

No Access Review

Former employee accounts still active 6 months after leaving — never deactivated in SAP

Risk

Dormant accounts are primary targets for external attacks; former employees retain system access they should not have

Basis Exposure

RFC connections between systems using stored dialog user credentials rather than system users

Risk

Compromising one system through the RFC connection gives attacker dialog access to connected systems — one breach becomes multiple

What We Deliver

SAP security & authorisation services

2iSolutions SAP Security & Authorisation Services 6 service areas · Design · Assess · Remediate · Govern

Authorisation Concept Design

Designing the role architecture from scratch — single roles, composite roles and derived roles mapped to job functions rather than transactions. Organisation-level field values, tolerance groups and structural authorisations defined per business unit. A well-designed concept prevents years of role remediation; a poorly designed one creates accumulating technical debt in every user's profile.

Role Design & PFCG Build

Building roles in the Profile Generator (PFCG) to the documented concept — transaction code assignment, authorisation object field value assignment, organisational level population and derived role hierarchy setup. Menu-based roles for user navigation plus authorisation roles for access control, segregated where required for clean transport management.

SoD Analysis & Remediation

Identifying segregation of duties conflicts across all active user assignments — conflicting access combinations that enable fraud, data manipulation or policy bypass. Conflict matrix defined against your risk appetite, conflicts identified per user, remediation options (role split, mitigating control, access removal) assessed and implemented. GRC Access Control used for automation where volume warrants it.

Security Health Check & Assessment

A structured assessment of the SAP security posture — covering user master records, role assignments, profile parameters (auth/no_check_in_some_cases, login/fails_to_session_end), RFC security, transport system security and Basis-level configuration. Output: a risk-rated findings report with remediation priorities and effort estimates, structured for presentation to IT management and auditors.

SAP Fiori & S/4HANA Authorisation

Fiori authorisation is separate from — and more complex than — classic SAP GUI authorisation. Business catalogue and group assignment, tile-level visibility control, OData service authorisation objects, business role framework (S/4HANA 2020+) and launchpad space management. Fiori implementations frequently go live with over-permissive access because Fiori auth is underestimated in implementation scope.

Audit Support & Remediation

Preparing the SAP security landscape for external audit — responding to auditor information requests, remediation of pre-audit findings before the audit starts, and post-audit finding remediation with auditor-acceptable evidence. Ongoing periodic access review management so the landscape never reaches the state that generates an audit finding in the first place.

The Framework

How SAP authorisation works — the four-layer model

SAP authorisation is not a simple "allow or deny" — it is a layered object model where access is determined by the combination of transaction codes, authorisation objects, field values and organisational levels. Understanding the model is prerequisite to designing roles that work correctly.

SAP Authorisation Model — Four Layers
Layer 1 · Entry Point
Transaction Codes (S_TCODE) Program Starts Web Dynpro Applications Fiori App Catalogues OData Service Endpoints
Layer 2 · Object Check
Authorisation Objects (e.g. F_BKPF_BUK) Activity Values (Create/Change/Display/Delete) Field-Level Access Control AUTHORITY-CHECK in ABAP
Layer 3 · Org Level
Company Code (BUKRS) Plant (WERKS) Sales Organisation (VKORG) Cost Centre (KOSTL) Purchasing Organisation
Layer 4 · Role Structure
Single Roles — one process area Composite Roles — bundled single roles Derived Roles — org-level variants User Group Assignment Profile Generator (PFCG)

The most common design error: Assigning access at Layer 1 (transaction codes) without restricting Layer 2 (authorisation object field values) and Layer 3 (organisational levels). A user assigned FB50 (journal entry) without Company Code restriction in F_BKPF_BUK can post to every company code in the system — not just their own.

Segregation of Duties

SoD conflicts in SAP — the most common and most costly security gap

Segregation of duties means no single user should control an entire business process end-to-end — particularly where the process involves money, master data or approval. These are the six SoD conflicts most commonly found in SAP landscapes — each representing a real fraud or error risk.

⚠ Critical SoD Conflicts — Commonly Found in Live SAP Landscapes
Financial Fraud Risk

Create Vendor + Post Payment

One user can create a fictitious vendor record and then process payment to it — complete fraud cycle without a second person involved. Most critical SoD in Accounts Payable.

Revenue Manipulation

Create Customer + Post Credit Memo

User can create a customer account and issue an unsupported credit memo — reducing a customer's balance without an approved reason or second reviewer.

Inventory Risk

Create PO + Goods Receipt + Invoice Verify

Same user controls the full procure-to-pay cycle — creating the order, receiving the goods and approving the invoice. No verification at any step.

Payroll Fraud Risk

Maintain Employee Master + Process Payroll

User can change bank account details on an employee record and then run the payroll — redirecting salary payments without a secondary approval on the bank change.

System Integrity Risk

Access to Development + Production Transport

User can write ABAP code and also release the transport to production — bypassing the requirement for a second person to approve production changes.

Pricing Manipulation

Maintain Pricing Conditions + Create Sales Order

User can change pricing condition records and then create sales orders at manipulated prices — inflating or deflating revenue without authorisation.

We analyse all active users — not just a sample — against a conflict matrix calibrated to your risk policy. Every user with a conflict receives a remediation recommendation: role split, access removal, or documented mitigating control accepted by management.

Our Methodology

Five-phase security engagement — from assessment to sustained governance

Security is not a project with a finish line — it is an ongoing governance function. Our methodology moves through an initial fix phase and into a sustained management model.

01
Assess

Security health check — user master, role assignments, SoD conflicts, Basis parameters, RFC security

02
Design

Role architecture, SoD conflict matrix, org-level framework, emergency access process

03
Remediate

Role rebuild, SoD conflict resolution, over-privileged access removal, Basis parameter hardening

04
Validate

UAT with business users, SoD re-scan to confirm resolution, regression test on critical processes

05
Govern

Periodic access review, joiner/mover/leaver process, SoD monitoring, audit evidence generation

What the assessment covers

  • Users with SAP_ALL or critical profiles
  • Debug authorisation (S_DEVELOP ACTVT 02) in production
  • Shared / generic user IDs in use
  • Dormant accounts (no login in 90+ days)
  • SoD conflicts across all active assignments
  • RFC connections using dialog credentials
  • Critical Basis parameters (login, auth, rfc)
  • Transport system security configuration

Governance deliverables — ongoing

  • Quarterly user access review report
  • Joiner / mover / leaver process execution
  • New role request assessment (SoD pre-check)
  • Monthly SoD conflict monitoring report
  • Emergency access (firefighter) log review
  • SAP security notes applied on schedule
  • Audit evidence package prepared on request
  • Annual security health check refresh
Tools & Techniques

What we use to assess and manage SAP security

PFCG

Profile Generator

SAP's native role maintenance tool — transaction code assignment, authorisation object field values, menu build and transport management for role changes.

SU24

Auth Object Proposals

Maintains the proposed authorisation objects for each transaction — used to ensure role builds pick up all required auth checks without manual object hunting.

SUIM

User Information System

Cross-queries on users, roles, profiles and authorisations — "find all users who have access to FB50 in company code 1000" — essential for SoD analysis and audit evidence.

SU53

Auth Failure Analysis

Shows the authorisation check that failed for a user's last access denied error — the first tool used to diagnose missing authorisations after role assignment.

STAD / SM20

Audit Log Analysis

Security audit log (SM20) and workload statistics (STAD) for forensic analysis — tracking which user performed which action at what time on what data.

SAP GRC AC

GRC Access Control

Automated SoD conflict detection, access risk analysis, emergency access management (Firefighter) and access request workflow for enterprises with high user volumes.

RZ10 / RZ11

Profile Parameters

SAP instance and default profile parameter management — setting login security parameters, password complexity rules, session limits and RFC trusted system configuration.

RSECADMIN

BW/BI Analysis Auth

SAP BW/BI analysis authorisation administration — cell-level data security for BW queries ensuring users see only the data their organisational level permits.

Why 2iSolutions

What makes our SAP security practice effective

Functional + Security Knowledge Together

SAP security requires knowing what each transaction and authorisation object actually does in the business process — not just how to assign it. Our security team is drawn from functional consultants who know Finance, Procurement and Manufacturing, not only from technical Basis consultants. This means SoD conflict assessments reflect real business risk, not generic ruleset matches.

Design Before Build

We design the authorisation concept — role architecture, SoD matrix, org-level framework and user provisioning process — before building a single role in PFCG. Roles built without a concept are the reason most SAP landscapes require full security remediation three years after go-live. The design is the deliverable that prevents the remediation project.

Full SoD Scan — Not Sampling

SoD analysis on a sample of users misses the conflicts that matter. We run the full conflict scan across every active user — not a statistically representative sample — because the fraudulent combination is more likely to be in the user you didn't check. Every conflict is documented, prioritised and remediated or mitigated.

Audit-Evidence Ready

Our security assessments and remediation work are documented to the standard external auditors require — user access evidence, SoD conflict reports, parameter configuration screenshots and role build documentation all packaged for audit presentation. Clients preparing for Big 4 audits or regulatory inspections don't need to create this evidence from scratch.

S/4HANA & Fiori Security Depth

Fiori authorisation — business catalogues, groups, tile visibility, OData service objects and the S/4HANA business role framework — is systematically underscoped in S/4HANA implementations. Our security team covers both the classic ABAP authorisation layer and the Fiori/UI5 layer that governs what users actually see in their S/4HANA interface.

Ongoing Governance Under AMS

Security isn't a project; it's an ongoing function. Joiner/mover/leaver access management, quarterly access reviews, new role request SoD pre-checks and periodic security health check refreshes are all delivered under our AMS practice — so the security posture stays current as the organisation and system evolve.

Track Record

SAP security and authorisation from a Gold Partner with 21 years of delivery

Our security practice covers implementation-phase authorisation design, post-go-live SoD remediation, pre-audit security hardening and ongoing governance under AMS — across S/4HANA, ECC, Business One and BTP landscapes.

SAP GoldPARTNER — GRC & SECURITY CERTIFIED
Full ScanALL USERS — NOT SAMPLED SoD ANALYSIS
Audit-ReadyEVIDENCE PACKAGED FOR BIG 4 REVIEW
21 yrsSAP AUTHORISATION EXPERIENCE SINCE 2005
FAQ

SAP security & authorisation: frequently asked questions

What is an SAP authorisation concept and why does it matter?

An SAP authorisation concept is the design document that defines how access is structured — which role types are used (single, composite, derived), how organisational levels are populated, how SoD conflicts are managed, what the user provisioning process is and how emergency access is controlled. Without a documented concept, roles accumulate inconsistently, SoD conflicts multiply, and the access landscape becomes impossible to audit or maintain. Most SAP security remediation projects trace back to an implementation that didn't produce a concept before building roles.

What are the most critical SAP security findings in an external audit?

The four findings that appear in virtually every SAP security audit: (1) users with SAP_ALL or equivalent super-user profiles in production; (2) unresolved SoD conflicts — specifically the create-vendor-and-pay and create-PO-and-goods-receipt combinations; (3) debug authorisation (S_DEVELOP with ACTVT 02) assigned to non-developers in production; and (4) dormant accounts still active for former employees. Each of these is identifiable with standard SAP tools and remediable before the audit — they should never appear as first-time audit findings.

What is a SoD conflict and how is it identified in SAP?

A segregation of duties conflict exists when one user has access to perform two or more steps in a process that should require different people — creating a vendor and paying that vendor, for example. In SAP, conflicts are identified by checking every active user's role and profile assignments against a conflict matrix that defines which transaction and authorisation object combinations are incompatible. The analysis is done using SUIM (User Information System), custom ABAP reports or GRC Access Control for automated detection and ongoing monitoring.

What is SAP GRC Access Control and when do we need it?

SAP GRC Access Control automates SoD conflict detection, access risk analysis, access request and approval workflow, and emergency access management (Firefighter). It's appropriate for organisations with large user populations (500+ active users), frequent access change requests, regulatory requirements mandating continuous SoD monitoring, or complex role landscapes where manual SoD analysis is impractical. For smaller landscapes, manual SoD analysis using SUIM and custom reports — combined with a periodic access review process — may be sufficient and significantly cheaper.

How is SAP Fiori authorisation different from SAP GUI authorisation?

Classic SAP GUI authorisation controls access through transaction codes (S_TCODE) and authorisation objects checked by ABAP code. Fiori authorisation has an additional layer — the launchpad layer — where business catalogues control which app tiles are visible and accessible. A user may have the ABAP authorisation to run a transaction but not see the Fiori tile because the catalogue isn't assigned, or vice versa — they see the tile but get an authorisation error when opening it. S/4HANA's business role framework (from 2020) adds another layer of configuration. Fiori auth requires managing both layers together.

How long does an SAP security remediation project take?

A focused SAP security health check and critical-finding remediation for a mid-size S/4HANA landscape typically takes 6–10 weeks: 2 weeks for assessment and findings documentation, 2 weeks for remediation design, 4–6 weeks for role changes, user access corrections and parameter hardening. Full role redesign — rebuilding the entire role architecture from scratch — is a larger programme: 3–6 months depending on the number of roles, user population and the complexity of the SoD conflict matrix. Fiori authorisation redesign adds scope proportional to the number of Fiori apps in use.

Security audit coming — or want to know your SAP security posture before one does?

A structured SAP security assessment takes 2 weeks — covering user access, SoD conflicts, critical profile assignments, debug authorisations, dormant accounts, RFC security and Basis parameter configuration. Output is a risk-rated findings report with remediation priorities, ready for management and auditor review.