# Tag Security Indirection

**URL:** <https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/tag-security-indirection/55810>\
**Category:** Ignition\
**Tags:** perspective\
**Created:** [February 7, 2022, 2:19pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/tag-security-indirection/55810 "2022-02-07T14:19:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![franklepkowski](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/franklepkowski/32/4808_2.png) [@franklepkowski](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/franklepkowski)\
**Post date:** [February 7, 2022, 2:19pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/tag-security-indirection/55810/1 "2022-02-07T14:19:36Z")

</div>

Hello All,

Curious if there is any way to make tag security within a UDT utilize an instance parameter? When you click read and write permissions, dialogs open up allowing you to select role and security zone. Can I bind these to instance parameters instead?

Thanks,

Frank

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kvane](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/kvane/32/22228_2.png) [@kvane](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/kvane)\
**Post date:** [February 7, 2022, 8:08pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/tag-security-indirection/55810/2 "2022-02-07T20:08:42Z")

</div>

Hello Frank,

The Read/Write permissions can’t be made dynamic in the way you desire. They utilize the Gateway’s Security Levels and have to be statically set.

They can be overwritten via scripting with the [system.tag.configure()](https://docs.inductiveautomation.com/display/DOC81/system.tag.configure) function, but that is much harder to manage than an internal UDT binding. It is not something I would recommend doing unless the use-case is very simple such as swapping the write permissions from a day shift to a night shift role.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sedamda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3da27b/32.png) [@sedamda](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/sedamda)\
**Post date:** [September 26, 2025, 1:52pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/tag-security-indirection/55810/3 "2025-09-26T13:52:26Z")

</div>

Hello,

Will this ever be an option in a future release? Setting tag security dynamically in a UDT would be extremely helpful.

We utilize alarm an Alarm UDT that is used across multiple pieces of equipment and being able to add indirection to the write permissions of tag security would allow it to be more widely used.

We have roles like Machine1\_Right\_Access, Machine2\_Write\_Access so we would need to be able to use something like {Machine}\_Write\_Access in the UDT tag security and then fill out the {Machine} parameter in the UDT instance.

Thanks,

Dalton

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kvane](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/kvane/32/22228_2.png) [@kvane](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/kvane)\
**Post date:** [September 26, 2025, 3:34pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/tag-security-indirection/55810/4 "2025-09-26T15:34:03Z")

</div>

Hey Dalton,

With additional years of experience I think it is still the same answer of the most dynamic native solution being scripting.

Your example is very practical, please add a comment and upvote this feature request which I think aligns with it: [Tag Security Bindings | Voters | Inductive Automation](https://ideas.inductiveautomation.com/ignition-features-and-ideas/p/tag-security-bindings)

Anyone else interested in the feature please do the same.