16 Feb 2026
06:42 PM
- last edited on
17 Feb 2026
08:08 AM
by
MaciejNeumann
We have Team ABC and they own a Management Zone (MZ) = XYZ in Dynatrace.
We want to provide New UI access to Team ABC users, but restrict them so they can only see:
Even after creating the policy + boundary, we are not clear on how to ensure entity-level restriction so Team ABC users can only see Synthetic monitors and Hosts that are in their Management Zone XYZ (and not monitors/hosts belonging to other teams/MZs).
Question: What is the correct way (best practice) to restrict visibility to only entities included in a specific Management Zone (XYZ) in the Dynatrace New UI for:
It would be helpful if Dynatrace provided clearer guidance (or simplified configuration) on how to enforce entity-level scoping by Management Zone for Synthetic and Infrastructure in the New UI using policies and boundaries.
Thanks.
17 Feb 2026 12:54 PM
Hi,
As I understand, you want Team ABC can see only Synthetic monitors + Hosts that belong to MZ XYZ in the New UI is typically enforced not by Management Zone alone, but by Grail security context (dt.security_context) + IAM policies/boundaries.
New UI Synthetic app is Grail-based and requires storage:* permissions (entities/metrics/events…). Grail doesn’t use Management Zones for record-level access control—MZ is primarily a classic UI partition/filter, while Grail ABAC is done via storage: fields.
link to documentation:
Policy boundaries
I think you can try this approach:
1. Tag the entities (Hosts + Synthetic) with dt.security_context, e.g. XYZ.
2. Create a policy boundary on that security context, e.g.
storage:dt.security_context = "XYZ";
3. Grant only minimal storage:* read (e.g. storage:entities:read, storage:metrics:read, storage:events:read + optionally document:*) and apply the boundary to the group binding.
Should the boundary be on the MZ?
You can reference MZ in boundaries (environment:management-zone ...) only where supported. For Synthetic in the New UI (Grail), reliable entity-level scoping is storage: + dt.security_context, not MZ.
Common “leaks”: broad environment-wide grants and mixing role-based permissions with IAM.
What MZ still provides: mainly filtering/partitioning in views, not always hard ABAC for Grail data.
To make building and validating these policies easier, I recommend using:
Omnilogy- Policy Manager
17 Feb 2026 04:50 PM
Hello t_pawlak,
Thank you for the reply and details. I will check and keep you posted.
Featured Posts