Definition and common meaning

“All users” is a scope label meaning that a rule, setting, or policy applies to every account that belongs to the relevant system, application, or environment. In practice, it’s used when an administrator or system designer wants broad coverage without targeting a specific subset of accounts.

Because it is intentionally broad, the security impact depends on how the system interprets that scope: it may map to a built-in “everyone” group, a permission template, or a wildcard-like selector. The key idea is that the rule is evaluated against the complete set of accounts that the system considers part of scope.

How it works (conceptually)

Most implementations follow one of these conceptual models:

  • Group-based scope: “All users” corresponds to an internal group whose membership the system defines. Any account in that group automatically inherits the rule.
  • Global scope at evaluation time: The system treats “all users” as “every authenticated account” for that environment, so the rule is applied whenever permissions are computed.
  • Environment-level scope: The label applies within a particular workspace, tenant, organization, or application context, not necessarily across unrelated systems.

The effective result is determined by how permissions are combined (for example, allow vs. deny rules) and whether other constraints exist (such as role-based overrides).

Differences and limits

The biggest limitation of “all users” is not the wording—it’s the boundary of what the system counts as “all.” Uncertainty often comes from:

  • Scope boundary: “All users” may mean all users in a specific tenant or project, not all users everywhere.
  • Inheritance and overrides: A broad rule can be narrowed by more specific rules, or expanded by default memberships.
  • New accounts: Future accounts may automatically be included, which can be desirable for convenience but risky if onboarding should be staged.
  • Service identities: Some systems include non-human accounts (e.g., API clients or automation identities) in broad scopes.

Because definitions vary by platform, you should treat “all users” as “the platform-defined superset,” not as a universal guarantee.

Practical checks you can perform

To verify what “all users” really includes and what it actually grants, use these checks:

  1. Confirm the scope boundary: Check where the rule applies (tenant/workspace/environment) rather than assuming global coverage.
  2. Inspect the effective rule: Look for the final computed permissions after all allow/deny and role overrides are applied.
  3. Review group membership (if group-based): Identify which accounts are members of the underlying “everyone” group.
  4. Test with a representative account: Use a test account that should match your expectation and verify that it can (or cannot) perform the intended actions.
  5. Check onboarding behavior: Create (or use) a new test user to confirm whether they inherit the same permissions automatically.

If the system provides an “effective permissions” view or audit log, that’s often the fastest way to resolve ambiguity.

When you see “all users,” it’s useful to compare it with related scope labels:

  • Specific users: applies to named accounts only.
  • Roles or groups: applies based on assigned membership.
  • Authenticated users: includes anyone who can sign in, excluding anonymous visitors.
  • Public/anonymous: applies to unauthenticated access, which is a different threat model.

Understanding these distinctions helps you place “all users” in context and reduce the chance of misconfiguration.