TM1 10.2 and BI 10.2.1 security - did it wrong - part 1

Post Reply
dkleist
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 12:33 pm

TM1 10.2 and BI 10.2.1 security - did it wrong - part 1

Post by dkleist »

Doing a TM1 10.2 install with BI 10.2.1 to provide Cognos security (AD). Ran into an issue in trying to change an application from 1 to 5. Set up links, gateway, services, etc (and did something wrong there) and could not add a C10 user into the security for the app - the Add New Client would not give the C10 security dialog prompt. I only got the native TM1 security box. After fumbling about, I ran across a workaround.

I set the security mode to 5; opened Architect while running as an account to have admin rights. Architect authenticated but then showed the limited set (sections but no objects). Closed Architect. Restarted application with security mode 1. Browse the security cube, could see the Cognos 10 user in the list. Gave it admin rights, then recycled the app to change security back to 5. I was then able to log into TM1 (all clients) using C10 security. Just thought I'd make a note here in case anyone runs into the issue.

(I only mention it as my dim memory makes me think you used to be able to add that admin account while in Sec Mode 1 - could be bad recollection though)
User avatar
mce
Community Contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:01 pm
OLAP Product: Cognos TM1
Version: Planning Analytics Local 2.0.x
Excel Version: 2013 2016
Location: Istanbul, Turkey

Re: TM1 10.2 and BI 10.2.1 security - did it wrong - part 1

Post by mce »

This is the normal situation that I would expect. It is something that you need to do for the first Cognos 10 user to be able to make him admin. Then you can assign other Cognos 10 users to TM1 groups only after they logged in to TM1 for the first time. Alternatively you can use a TI process to pre-add Cognos 10 users to TM1 server.
dkleist
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 12:33 pm

Re: TM1 10.2 and BI 10.2.1 security - did it wrong - part 1

Post by dkleist »

I agree it makes sense. I added this only for two reasons:
- the documentation from IBM doesn't match this process
- I don't remember it working that way for 10.1.x and earlier

I cannot prove the second point, it's only from memory, and not really relevant anyway.
Post Reply