GNU Health - Bugs: bug #35461, Privilege Separation for Patiet...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #35461: Privilege Separation for Patiet Registration
Submitter: | Christoph H. Larsen <cd_larsen> | ||
Submitted: | Mon 06 Feb 2012 05:47:35 PM UTC | ||
Category: | Functionality | Severity: | 3 - Normal |
Item Group: | None | Status: | Ready For Test |
Privacy: | Public | Assigned to: | meanmicio |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Release: | 2.9.0 |
Module: | health | Component: | None |
Jump to the original submission
Fri 29 May 2015 12:53:23 AM UTC, comment #9: |
Chris Zimmerman <teffalump> |
Mon 18 May 2015 10:45:49 AM UTC, comment #8: Hi, Chris !
|
Luis Falcon <meanmicio> |
Sun 17 May 2015 06:50:09 PM UTC, comment #7: What I meant, and I believe what Christoph was saying, is that its easier, if you have many fields, to put them on a single model instead of individually defining the access rights. I'll close this and we can reopen if need be. |
Chris Zimmerman <teffalump> |
Sat 16 May 2015 09:53:13 PM UTC, comment #6: You don't need to have a separate model, Tryton will do the job if you configure field access rights. |
Cédric Krier <cedk> |
Sat 16 May 2015 06:53:01 PM UTC, comment #5: I made a task - https://savannah.gnu.org/task/?13590 - about hiding unused gui elements. The last commits hide all the sensitive fields from the default frontdesk user. Other than that, the only thing more for this issue would probably be to truly separate a safe subset of patient info. That is, have the fields as a separate model, like Christoph suggested. Any thoughts? |
Chris Zimmerman <teffalump> |
Wed 29 Apr 2015 03:50:59 AM UTC, comment #4: I've restricted access to all the Gyneco, Socio, and Lifestyle fields from the Frontdesk group. I suppose we could still move all those fields to separate models. However, I don't know if that'll happen anytime soon. I do see the usefulness of defining a 'safe' subset of the patient info for any of the purely administrative users. |
Chris Zimmerman <teffalump> |
Wed 29 Apr 2015 02:36:37 AM UTC, comment #3: I just pushed a commit restrict (i.e, hide) frontdesk access to all the gyneco fields by default. I'll next move to the Lifestyle and Socio and restrict those. Then, the default Frontdesk user will have more realistic access rights. |
Chris Zimmerman <teffalump> |
Mon 27 Apr 2015 09:18:15 PM UTC, comment #2: What I'm understanding from this report is a goal of access rights and clear divisions of users. From what I've seen on the development of the PUID (vs SSN) and synchro, many of these concerns have been taken care of.
|
Chris Zimmerman <teffalump> |
Tue 07 Feb 2012 01:22:41 AM UTC, comment #1: Hi Chris
|
Luis Falcon <meanmicio> |
Mon 06 Feb 2012 05:47:35 PM UTC, original submission:
Dear Crowd,
|
Christoph H. Larsen <cd_larsen> |
No files currently attached
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 8 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2015-05-17 | teffalump | Status | In Progress | Ready For Test | |
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2015-04-27 | teffalump | Status | Need Info | In Progress | |
Release | 1.4.2 | 2.9.0 | |||
Module | health | ||||
2012-02-07 | meanmicio | Status | None | Need Info | |
Assigned to | None | meanmicio | |||
Release | None | 1.4.2 |
Powered by Savane 3.13-f8d8.
Corresponding source code
Hiya Luis!
Sorry about late response, I've been traveling and the internet was expensive and heavily-restricted there.
I think the recent commits to restrict all the gyneco, socio, and lifestyle fields from the frontdesk user by default should address the main concern. Previously, the default installation for the frontdesk user was able to see the patient medical history, specifically gyneco, socio, and lifestyle fields. That seemed unintended. Hehe.
Regards,
C
PS: I did give the suggested solution (separate models) an attempt but the only relationship that makes sense is a 1-1 (somewhat ugly). You'd also have to redo the patient view considering the view-model restrictions.