Design intent
Make responsibility explicit
Name permissions around meaningful actions, map them to roles or resource assignments, and verify the enforcement point checks both actor and target resource.
Features / Fine-grained authorization
Custom Permissions
Express application-specific actions more precisely than a broad role name can communicate.
Explore the design intent, review practical decisions and validate exact behavior against your deployed configuration.
Why it matters
Make the policy understandable before you automate it.
When permissions are hard-coded or too broad, teams struggle to review whether each action is appropriate for a given resource and identity.
Worked scenario
See it in context
A project role permits publishing but not deleting another team’s project, even though both actions occur in the same application.
Boundary to verify
Do not rely on interface alone
Confirm enforcement at the relevant server, API, resource or operational decision point. A hidden button or an informative dashboard is not, by itself, an authorization control.
Practical path
From intent to verified outcome.
Use these stages as a review guide. Exact settings and enforcement points depend on the configured deployment and connected systems.
Define the boundary
Identify the actor, target resource and operation that custom permissions is meant to govern.
Configure the policy
Name permissions around meaningful actions, map them to roles or resource assignments, and verify the enforcement point checks both actor and target resource.
Exercise the edge cases
A project role permits publishing but not deleting another team’s project, even though both actions occur in the same application. Also test the path that should be denied, deferred or sent for review.
Review the outcome
Check that the resulting state is understandable and that the decision can be investigated later. For audit-enabled operations, confirm the relevant actor and context are captured.
Before rollout
Questions worth answering.
A capability is easier to operate when ownership, failure behavior and verification are defined upfront.
- Confirm the subject, resource and scope affected by custom permissions.
- Are permission names meaningful, do they have a clear scope, and do tests cover both allowed and forbidden actions?
- Test the expected path and at least one denied, expired or incomplete path.
- Make ownership, failure handling and review evidence clear before rollout.
This page describes a design approach based on WebFrolic’s documented product model. Verify feature availability and exact behavior in your environment before relying on it for a control requirement.
Related capabilities
Explore what connects to this.
Follow the related areas to understand how this capability fits within identity, access, lifecycle and operations.
Evaluate with your scenario
Start with a concrete workflow.
Share the identities, resource boundary and decision you want to test. The walkthrough can focus on the relevant behavior rather than a generic feature tour.