[GH-ISSUE #162] Feature Request: User permissions per client #96

Closed
opened 2026-03-02 02:13:31 +03:00 by kerem · 13 comments
Owner

Originally created by @sidewaysglance on GitHub (Nov 1, 2020).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/amidaware/tacticalrmm/issues/162

Originally assigned to: @sadnub on GitHub.

Would it be a relatively simple job to enable controls that allowed specific users to be assigned to specific clients?

Originally created by @sidewaysglance on GitHub (Nov 1, 2020). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/amidaware/tacticalrmm/issues/162 Originally assigned to: @sadnub on GitHub. Would it be a relatively simple job to enable controls that allowed specific users to be assigned to specific clients?
kerem 2026-03-02 02:13:31 +03:00
Author
Owner

@wh1te909 commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2020):

I'll add it as an enhancement but definitely not simple so can't promise this will happen anytime soon.

<!-- gh-comment-id:720234917 --> @wh1te909 commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2020): I'll add it as an enhancement but definitely not simple so can't promise this will happen anytime soon.
Author
Owner

@nr-plaxon commented on GitHub (Dec 19, 2020):

A (simple) permission management that would allow for creating users without the option to run administrative tasks such as editing scripts, policies, etc. or deleting agents and other stuff would be great.

<!-- gh-comment-id:748437666 --> @nr-plaxon commented on GitHub (Dec 19, 2020): A (simple) permission management that would allow for creating users without the option to run administrative tasks such as editing scripts, policies, etc. or deleting agents and other stuff would be great.
Author
Owner

@saulens22 commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2021):

+1 on this.

Role "Client admin"

  • No "Global settings" menu
  • No "Add" / "Delete" functions
  • No "Upload MeshAgent"
  • No "Edit clients"
  • No "User administration"
  • "Script manager" - edit only current user's scripts or no edit at all
  • "Automation manager" ?

It would be enough to be useful and (relatively) simple to implement. Later on it could contain more granularity (for example, allow / deny patch management, software installation, access to specific clients / sites / machines...)

Might look into this if I'll find some time.

<!-- gh-comment-id:769721826 --> @saulens22 commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2021): +1 on this. Role "Client admin" - No "Global settings" menu - No "Add" / "Delete" functions - No "Upload MeshAgent" - No "Edit clients" - No "User administration" - "Script manager" - edit only current user's scripts or no edit at all - "Automation manager" ? It would be enough to be useful and (relatively) simple to implement. Later on it could contain more granularity (for example, allow / deny patch management, software installation, access to specific clients / sites / machines...) Might look into this if I'll find some time.
Author
Owner

@frankemann commented on GitHub (Apr 11, 2021):

+1 for being able to get access fo specific Clients, Sites or Devices for specific Users.

As a MSP we often have individual IT-consultants we work with which have they own small customerbase and also would like to have a small RMM installed. Instead of using multiple RMM on the devices, they could log in to our RMM and just see their clients.

<!-- gh-comment-id:817271503 --> @frankemann commented on GitHub (Apr 11, 2021): +1 for being able to get access fo specific Clients, Sites or Devices for specific Users. As a MSP we often have individual IT-consultants we work with which have they own small customerbase and also would like to have a small RMM installed. Instead of using multiple RMM on the devices, they could log in to our RMM and just see their clients.
Author
Owner

@cm-slu commented on GitHub (Apr 18, 2021):

+1 for me too is a good idea.

<!-- gh-comment-id:822014431 --> @cm-slu commented on GitHub (Apr 18, 2021): +1 for me too is a good idea.
Author
Owner

@wh1te909 commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021):

released in 0.6.9

<!-- gh-comment-id:839529472 --> @wh1te909 commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021): released in 0.6.9
Author
Owner

@cm-slu commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021):

Hello, this is great.
I looked quickly but is it possible to prohibit a certain user from accessing a certain site?

<!-- gh-comment-id:839538596 --> @cm-slu commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021): Hello, this is great. I looked quickly but is it possible to prohibit a certain user from accessing a certain site?
Author
Owner

@dinger1986 commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021):

Have you added a new user since doing the updates?

<!-- gh-comment-id:839539834 --> @dinger1986 commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021): Have you added a new user since doing the updates?
Author
Owner

@cm-slu commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021):

Have you added a new user since doing the updates?
Yes

<!-- gh-comment-id:839549158 --> @cm-slu commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021): > Have you added a new user since doing the updates? Yes
Author
Owner

@wh1te909 commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021):

i've opened #494 to keep track of this

<!-- gh-comment-id:839550193 --> @wh1te909 commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021): i've opened #494 to keep track of this
Author
Owner

@dinger1986 commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021):

Cheers @wh1te909 was just about to add that ticket to this one!

<!-- gh-comment-id:839550746 --> @dinger1986 commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021): Cheers @wh1te909 was just about to add that ticket to this one!
Author
Owner

@cm-slu commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021):

Ok my English is not at the top, if I understand it is my request is in progress

<!-- gh-comment-id:839602156 --> @cm-slu commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021): Ok my English is not at the top, if I understand it is my request is in progress
Author
Owner

@wh1te909 commented on GitHub (May 13, 2021):

Ok my English is not at the top, if I understand it is my request is in progress

yes

<!-- gh-comment-id:840398133 --> @wh1te909 commented on GitHub (May 13, 2021): > Ok my English is not at the top, if I understand it is my request is in progress yes
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
starred/tacticalrmm#96
No description provided.