Is My Role-Based Access Control Plan Too Complicated for Our Healthcare Org?
Asked by
CuriousCrafter85
I recently took over the management of an Active Directory environment in a healthcare organization that's pretty much a mess. The previous admins, along with an MSP, attempted to clean up the environment but just rearranged things without really creating a solid structure. I'm aiming to implement a simplified Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) model while keeping Organizational Units (OUs) flat to reduce overhead. The ultimate goal is to prepare for future integrations with our HR system for auto-provisioning and to set up Intune deployment.
### Current Setup:
- No nested security groups; everything is directly assigned with random names for security groups.
- Users and computers are only grouped by location, which is problematic given our many small offices.
- There are no standardized naming conventions.
- There's also no clarity on what access each role should have.
### My Proposed Structure:
I'm suggesting a simpler OU layout with five top-level OUs:
```
Root Domain
└── Healthcare Organization
├── Users OU
├── Computers OU
├── Servers OU
├── Groups OU
└── Service Accounts OU
```
With a three-tier RBAC model where users would belong directly to:
1. Location Groups
2. Department Groups
3. Role Groups
I want to keep the OU structure simple while using security groups for all access control through a nested RBAC structure.
### My Questions:
1. Is this plan too complex for a mid-sized healthcare organization with about 1000 users?
2. Are there any potential pitfalls I should be aware of?
3. What are some good strategies for implementing or migrating from the current chaotic setup?
I'd love to get any feedback or experiences from others to help fine-tune this before diving in. I'm trying to strike a balance between simplicity, security, and manageability, and it's really stressing me out trying to find the best way to set this up for long-term success.
Answers
I think your idea of a three-tier RBAC system could work well if you keep it streamlined. Adding an extra OU for disabled users might be helpful for administrative tasks. Just be ready to adjust permissions as necessary because roles can evolve over time. You may end up needing to manage resource and user groups individually depending on unique needs that pop up.
Reply to this answer
I've been using a similar setup for 25 years, and it really can work. Just remember to plan thoroughly before implementation – that’s often where the best structures are born. Although I think a flat structure is smart, think carefully about how you define those groups to avoid ending up in a mess again later.
CuriousCrafter85: Planning is definitely on my list! I see how important it is to get it right the first time.
Reply to this answer
I think the concern is that your approach might add complexity rather than reduce it. Although RBAC can be beneficial, if it’s overcomplicated, it might not save you any effort in the long run. Instead of diving headfirst into a new structure, spend some time understanding why things are set up the way they are currently. You might find some hidden wisdom in the current chaos!
CuriousCrafter85: Thanks for the insight! I’ll look into the existing structure a bit more before making any changes.
Reply to this answer
Make sure you're familiar with the regulations that affect your organization. It’s essential to design your solution to adhere to these regulations, or you risk compliance issues that could have serious consequences for your organization. Having a chat with whoever is responsible for compliance is a smart move too, just to cover all bases.
CuriousCrafter85: You’re right. I’ll pivot my focus to regulatory requirements before I finalize my plan. Thanks for the reminder!
Reply to this answer
Add your answer
Answers are reviewed before publication.
CuriousCrafter85: Great suggestion! I’ll consider adding that extra OU. I guess flexibility will be key moving forward.