Security loophole in Private Channels?
We came across an interesting use case in our organization today. We have a Team and a private channel within that Teams team. Within the private channel a subsite was created. I am not an owner or member of the Team nor am I a member or owner of the private channel. However during creation of the subsite I was able to be invited with unique permissions to the subsite and I was successfully able to access it. After the initial creation of the subsite, our admin was not able to add or remove or effect any additional permissions on that subsite. Is this a loophole? I expected that without being a member of the private channel I would have absolutely zero access to any items associated with the private channel and site. Which has remained true (when I go to the private channel URL I get denied access) except that I do have access to this specific subsite. My instinct is that the reason permissions cannot be changed after the fact is that this is a genuine loophole and permissions weren't intended by Microsoft to be able to be granted at all on the subsite. This is due to the fact it is under the private channel and permissions should only be able to be changed via the admin UI or from the Teams application. Has anyone come across this in their work? Any guesses or explanations for why the subsite access would be initially available? Is this just genuinely a loophole in the permissions architecture?Hub site hierarchy
Because I heard that subsites might be deprecated soon, because MS recommends flat hierarchies with Hub sites, I was thinking to renew our SPO site hierarchy. That hierarchy is based on subsites and looks like this: Customer 1 (Top Level) Location 1 of Customer 1 (Subsite Level 1) - Product 1 in Location 1 of Customer 1 (Subsite Level 2) - Product 2 in Location 1 of Customer 1 Location 2 of Customer 1 - Product 1 in Location etc.. Location 3 of Customer 1 Customer 2 Location 1 of Customer 2 Location 2 of Customer 2 Location 3 of Customer 2 Customer n... So we have an SPO site for each customer, site of customer and product of customer. Those hierarchies can be navigated easily via links to site contents. Unfortunately our approach seems now bad, because MS does not recommend subsites anymore. So what can we do? With Hubsites I can only build a two-layer hierarchy. What I am showing above is not possible. Are there any recommendations? Currently we are having already +2000 subsites, so those would have to be converted to +2000 site collections each?How to Move a SharePoint Subsite
Hello, I need to move a subsite from one site to another. You use to be able to do this thtough Site Settings > Site Content and Structure. However, that doesn't seem to work anymore. Example (see attached screenshot): I need to move these subsites to a different parent (sub)site. Without using sitemanager.aspx, as that doesn't seem to work anymore. Thanks! Meag
SharePoint Hub Site Association not working for Sub Site anymore
Earlier we were able to use the PowerShell commands and associate Sub Sites from another Site Collection successfully to our Hub Site. This has worked up until very recently (last month), but now nothing happens when we run the exact same commands. No error shows, but there is no effect either. What has happened and why is it not working anymore? In the modern SharePoint Admin center we see that the Site Collection main site is associated to the Hub, but apparently the effect is not trickled down to Sub Sites. Again, earlier we were able to do this by running the PowerShell commands for the specific Sub Site to get the association created.Help me adhere to best practices. Please!
I'm an Office 365 deployment engineer with 15 years of professional experience advocating and implementing Microsoft's cloud offerings. I've always seen the vision that the company had laid out, even when I didn't agree. But I am having difficulties with the modern SharePoint infornation architecture. I hope I just have blinders on and am missing something obvious. Here is a very common scenario for clients I work with. A law firm has 10 attorneys, each with specialized areas of practice: civil, criminal, litigaton, business law, family law etc. For each area of practice an attorney does work, they have a set of documents that they use for templates, research etc. The firm itself also has it's own IT department, HR department, and firm legal department. The firm has clients, lawyers have clients individually or sometimes a couple of attorneys will share a client. Some clients may have 1 case that has one attorney. However some cases might have 10 clients and 3 attorneys (class action for example). Also some clients may have 300 cases with 1 attorney and some may have 300 cases with 4 different attorneys. To make things more complicated, a firm may have a case where 1 attorney has a conflict of interest requiring a "Chinese Firewall". Also add in paralegals, secretaries and other support staff. I've had no issues creating this structure for years with the traditional site collection heirarchy. It's actually been a dream of a platform. However I am completely lost as to how I could possibly duplicate this in the modern flat site world. It's very common for a small firm as described above to have 3-5,000 active cases for 1000 clients. Add to this another 10-50,000 archived cases and 5,000 clients. Some of which have 5 documents others that have thousands spanning 10 years. How is this supposed to work? If it was a small one or two partner firm I could theoretically use the client as the hub site. And each case could be a site assigned to that hub, but that doesn't make sense because a case will never not be associated with that client. And we run into issues really fast as soon as the firm has 201 clients. As that's the ceiling for hub sites. So I think okay we'll make the attorney the hub site and a client site an associated site. But then how do I separate different cases for clients that have 500 active cases. Some of these cases have thousands of documents. Some require permission firewalls for some cases. I could create a document library for each case, but there is no way to link custom lists and libraries to individual document libraries that I am aware of without custom development that is beyond the scope of what I am comfortable doing for such a key business solution. Espescially when this was easily handled in the old setup. I thought about creating a hub for each legal specialty, but again I'm left with the situation where client sites would be a freaking disaster. I just do not see a way in which this can work in a cohesive understandable manner. This is the abridged version by the way. I haven't even talked about workflows, retention policies, disposition of records. If there was a way to nest hub sites, this could be viable if the hub site limit wasn't 200. I just feel like unless I'm missing something, I'm stuck with the classic SharePoint for the time being. I cannot be the only one who is facing this dilemma ? I don't see any focus on addressing this in the road map and I don't see any talk about this from my contacts at MS except for to say subsites are the devil. I have a reputation for providing clients solutions that are viable and will be supported into the future. And seeing things that were introduced in SharePoint 2013 already being classified as deprecated is a big red flag. Don't get me wrong. For other clients and business models I absolutely love the new modern design and implementation. And I'm selling it and hoping it wherever possible. I hope I'm just oblivious to something, I admit to sometimes being unable to look outside of my comfort zone and jumping to a "sky is falling" mentality.
