Create a Post
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Access Control - Dealing with hidings (UID instead of No. descriptor)


Just a small thing that came into my mind during the last weeks and also today. I currently have to manage some real big rule bases (1000+ rules in each policy) and work with several people in the team. Every now and then we have hidings - sometimes lots of them. That means, up to 10+ entries in the policy verification info slide. I realized, that the formatting of this info is not optimal, as it reads like this:

"Error: Layer xyz: Rule xyz hides rule xyz for Services & Applications xyz

Rule xyz1 hides rule xyz1 for Services & Applications xyz1

Rule xyz2 hides rule xyz2 for Services & Applications xyz2

Rule xyz3 hides rule xyz3 for Services & Applications xyz3

Rule xyz4 hides rule xyz4 for Services & Applications xyz4"

The first thing that came into my mind is; why does the formatting look that strange - shouldn't the first entry also be in a new line after the colon? But that is just a very small cosmetic thing, not a real problem. The main issue I have is, that the rule description is based on the actual number of the rule (No. column) instead of the rule id (UID) or the name (considering it was named in a unique way). I often end oft cleaning the hidings and need to verify the policy again and again after each mentioned point, just because the rule numbers change when I delete a specific rule if it's been fully hidden and not necessary anymore. Is there a way to change the details section of policy verification and other errors to show the rule id (UID) instead of the rule number (No.)?

If not - are there other people here who think that feature would make sense to maybe include in a future release?



3 Replies
This widget could not be displayed.