Security audit findings in portfolio management: common issues and remediation strategies

PLM SAP PLM
, , , , , , , ,
1

I’ve been conducting security audits of SAP PLM implementations for the past five years, and portfolio management consistently surfaces the most authorization issues. I’m curious if others are seeing similar patterns and how you’re addressing them.

The most common findings I see: overly broad role assignments where users have more portfolio access than needed, inadequate separation between portfolio creators and approvers, weak password policies for external portfolio stakeholders, and insufficient audit logging of portfolio data changes. Many organizations treat portfolio management as a planning tool without recognizing that it contains strategic IP and financial data that requires strong controls.

We recently audited a client where 60% of users had display access to all portfolios including confidential strategic initiatives. Another client had a single service account with full portfolio administration rights shared among multiple analysts. These aren’t isolated incidents - I see variations of these issues repeatedly.

What audit findings are you encountering in portfolio management? What remediation strategies have proven effective? Are there specific SAP PLM 2020 security features that help address these common gaps?

2

Regular access reviews are critical but often neglected. We schedule quarterly reviews where portfolio owners certify that each user still needs their assigned access. Any access not recertified is automatically revoked. This prevents access creep where people accumulate permissions over time. We’ve removed approximately 30% of portfolio access grants through this process over the past year. The reviews also serve as documentation for auditors.

3

We had similar findings in our last audit. The remediation focused on three areas: implementing role-based access control with least privilege principle, enforcing stronger authentication for external users, and enabling comprehensive audit logging. We reduced users with full portfolio access from 45 to 8 people who genuinely need it. Everyone else got restricted to specific portfolio categories relevant to their job function.

4

This discussion confirms what I’m seeing across multiple clients. Let me consolidate the common audit findings and effective remediation strategies:

Common Security Audit Findings in Portfolio Management:

  1. Excessive Access Rights: Users have broader portfolio access than required for their role. Typical finding: 40-70% of users can view all portfolios including strategic initiatives they shouldn’t see.

  2. Shared Administrative Accounts: Multiple users share credentials for portfolio administration, making accountability impossible. Often justified as “convenient” for team collaboration.

  3. Inadequate Separation of Duties: Same users can create, approve, and close portfolios without independent review. This is especially problematic for investment decisions.

  4. Weak Authentication: External stakeholders and executives often have weak passwords or no MFA, despite accessing sensitive strategic data.

  5. Insufficient Audit Logging: Standard SAP change documents don’t capture who viewed portfolio data, only who modified it. Viewing strategic portfolios can be as sensitive as modifying them.

  6. Access Creep: Users retain portfolio access after role changes. No periodic recertification process.

  7. Overly Broad Role Templates: Portfolio access bundled into general PLM roles rather than granted based on specific need.

Least-Privilege Access Remediation:

Implement role-based access control with portfolio-specific authorization objects:

  • Create portfolio category-based roles (Strategic, Operational, R&D, etc.)
  • Assign users only to categories they need for their job function
  • Use authorization object PPM_PORTFOLIO with field CATEGORY to restrict access
  • Implement approval workflow for any role assignments granting strategic portfolio access
  • Document business justification for each portfolio access grant
  • Default to no access - users must request and justify specific portfolio categories

Practical example: Engineering managers get access to R&D portfolios but not strategic M&A portfolios. Finance analysts get access to investment portfolios but not product development portfolios. This reduces unnecessary exposure by 60-80% in typical implementations.

Audit Logging Enhancement:

Standard SAP change documents are insufficient for portfolio management. Implement comprehensive audit logging:

  • Log all portfolio access events (view, edit, export, print)
  • Capture user ID, timestamp, portfolio ID, action type, and client IP address
  • Store logs in separate database or SIEM system outside SAP
  • Restrict log access to audit team only - even SAP administrators cannot modify
  • Retain logs for minimum 7 years (or per your regulatory requirements)
  • Implement real-time alerting for sensitive access patterns (executive accessing competitor analysis portfolio, user downloading all strategic portfolios, etc.)

Use SAP’s Change Document Object functionality or implement custom logging via BAdIs. For SAP PLM 2020, consider using the Security Audit Log (SM19/SM20) configured specifically for portfolio management transactions.

Password Policy Updates:

Balance security requirements with user experience through risk-based authentication:

  • Standard Portfolios: 12-character passwords, 90-day rotation, standard complexity
  • Strategic Portfolios: 14-character passwords, MFA required, 60-day rotation
  • External Stakeholders: MFA mandatory regardless of portfolio type
  • Service Accounts: 20-character passwords, stored in PAM system, 90-day rotation
  • Failed Login Lockout: 5 attempts, 30-minute lockout period

Configure password policies in transaction SECPOL or use your identity provider’s policies if using federated authentication. For executives resistant to complex passwords, implement SSO with MFA at the identity provider level - they get single sign-on convenience with strong authentication.

Additional Remediation Strategies:

Access Recertification Process:

  • Quarterly reviews where portfolio owners certify each user’s continued need for access
  • Automated email workflow prompting owners to review and approve/revoke access
  • Any access not recertified within 30 days is automatically disabled
  • HR integration to automatically trigger access reviews when employees change roles

Separation of Duties:

  • Portfolio creators cannot approve their own portfolios
  • Portfolio approvers cannot modify portfolio financial data
  • Implement workflow-based approval requiring sign-off from different departments
  • Use SAP Business Workflow with organizational management integration

Privileged Access Management:

  • Eliminate shared administrative accounts
  • Create individual technical users for automation (e.g., PORTFOLIO_SYNC_USER)
  • Implement PAM solution (CyberArk, BeyondTrust) for administrative access
  • Require approval and business justification for any use of administrative credentials
  • Session recording for all administrative activities

Role Architecture Redesign:

  • Separate portfolio authorization from general PLM access
  • Create portfolio-specific composite roles (Z_PORTFOLIO_R&D_DISPLAY, Z_PORTFOLIO_STRATEGIC_EDIT)
  • Use authorization object PPM_PORTFOLIO with granular field-level authorization
  • Implement portfolio data classification (Public, Internal, Confidential, Strategic)
  • Map role permissions to data classification levels

The underlying issue is that many organizations implement portfolio management as a project planning tool without recognizing it contains some of their most sensitive strategic data. Competitor analysis, M&A targets, R&D roadmaps, and investment priorities are all managed in portfolios. These require controls comparable to financial systems, not just project tracking tools.

Effective remediation requires executive sponsorship to overcome resistance to stricter controls. Frame the discussion around protecting strategic IP and competitive advantage rather than just compliance. When executives understand that their strategic plans are viewable by dozens of unnecessary users, they typically support tighter controls. Use audit findings as a catalyst for broader portfolio security transformation, not just point fixes to satisfy auditors.

5

Password policy enforcement was surprisingly difficult. Many portfolio stakeholders are executives who resist complex password requirements. We compromised by implementing risk-based authentication - standard passwords for low-sensitivity portfolios, MFA required for strategic portfolios. This gave us stronger controls where they matter most while maintaining usability for routine access. Executive buy-in improved significantly with this approach.

6

One pattern we identified - portfolio management roles were often assigned as part of broader PLM role templates without considering sensitivity. We separated portfolio authorization from general PLM access. Now someone can have full BOM management rights but zero portfolio access unless explicitly justified. This required redesigning our role architecture but dramatically reduced unnecessary exposure to strategic data.

7

Audit logging was our biggest gap. SAP PLM’s standard change documents weren’t granular enough for portfolio management. We implemented custom logging that captures every portfolio view, edit, and export with user ID and timestamp. This goes to a separate audit database that even portfolio administrators can’t modify. When auditors ask who accessed strategic portfolio data, we can provide exact details.