In a conflict of permissions, which takes precedence: user permissions or group permissions?

In the context of CyberArk Privileged Access Security and similar systems that manage authorization, user permissions typically take precedence over group permissions in the event of a conflict. This means that if a user is assigned both individual permissions (specific to them) and permissions inherited through a group, the user’s specific permissions will override those granted by the group.

This approach is based on the principle of least privilege, which aims to give users the minimal level of access necessary to perform their responsibilities, allowing for a finer granularity of control. By allowing user permissions to override group permissions, the system ensures that individualized access settings can be applied, accommodating unique needs or circumstances for specific users without broadly impacting a group’s access rights.

The other options do not align with this principle. For instance, stating that group permissions take precedence undermines the individual adjustments that might be necessary in certain situations. Considering both permissions equally would lead to ambiguity in access, potentially granting more privilege than intended. Ignoring permissions entirely would negate the purpose of the permissions system, rendering it ineffective in managing access control. Thus, prioritizing user permissions is a mechanism to ensure tighter control and mitigated risks associated with privilege escalation in a security context.