SAP Security Best Practice Alert!

 Difference between adding direct S_TCODE instead of PFCG Menu

I recently came across a role design that made me do a double take—transactions were added directly to S_TCODE instead of using the PFCG menu. If you’ve ever done this (or seen it happen), let’s talk about why it’s a bad idea and what you should do instead.

What’s Wrong with This Approach?

When you add transactions directly to S_TCODE, you’re skipping a crucial security step. The system doesn’t automatically bring in the necessary authorization objects and field values, which can lead to:

• Security gaps – Missing required authorizations can leave your system vulnerable.
• Inconsistent role structures – Your roles won’t follow a standardized design, making them harder to manage.
• Extra manual effort – You’ll have to track and add missing authorizations manually, increasing the risk of errors.

Why Should You Always Use the PFCG Menu?

Here’s why PFCG should be your go-to method for role design:

• Automated Profile Generation – The system pulls in all necessary authorization objects when you add a TCode via the menu.
• Comprehensive Authorization Checks – It ensures all relevant objects (as defined in SU24) are included, preventing access issues later.
• Standardized Security Structure – Keeps your roles clean, consistent, and easy to maintain.
• Reduces Manual Errors – Directly adding TCodes can lead to missing dependencies and security risks.

Are There Any Exceptions?

There are rare cases where modifying S_TCODE directly is justified, such as:

• Technical roles – For example, development or integration roles that require a wide range of transactions.
• Special cases – When a business scenario demands it, but only after a thorough review of related authorization objects.

The best approach is to follow best practices and let PFCG handle the complexities of authorization management. This ensures security, consistency, and efficiency in role design.