Troubleshooting issues usually encountered with SharePoint
CIOREVIEW >> Software >> NEWS

Troubleshooting issues usually encountered with SharePoint

CIO Review

SharePoint is considered as a robust platform for collaboration where users can conduct various diverse operations and further store them in one single location. But, the intricate complexity of the system proves to be frustrating for even the most experienced users. SharePoint bases itself upon six essential features - business intelligence, business processes, enterprise content management, search, portals, and collaboration. Moreover, most of these features are inter-related with each other, thus making it a difficult task to identify and segregate the issue for users, developers, and administrators. Troubleshooting problems in such a complex and intertwined environment demands the administrator to be proficient and experienced in isolating SharePoint errors, which can be gained from practice and patience. Let us browse through some of the usual challenges encountered by users collaborating through SharePoint and devise methodologies so as to troubleshoot those.

Integration of SharePoint RSS feeds within SharePoint

Microsoft integrates an out-of-the-box RSS Reader Web part within SharePoint, allowing users to include external RSS feeds. For instance, the feature enables users to embed Google News in their SharePoint site. But, the compatibility issue which arises between out-of the-box RSS Web part and SharePoint RSS feeds poses to be a major consternation. This problem arises as SharePoint sites require proper authentication.

Stay ahead of the industry with exclusive feature stories on the top companies, expert insights and the latest news delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe today.

The problem can be usually approached in two systematic ways. First, anonymous access can be created for the lists which are supposed to be distributed through RSS. This approach can be considered as a viable option for the non-secure content that lies within the intranet. Moreover, this will allow out-of-the-box Web part to consume and present the feeds. An alternate approach can be considered incase users don’t prefer enabling anonymous access. In such a scenario, users can consider utilizing few open-source or free Web parts, viz. SharePoint Solution Data Zoom Web Part, RSS Web Part Reader on CodePlex, and Webcoda SharePoint RSS Rotator Web Part.

Double authentication prompts within SharePoint can be infuriating

When trying to download or update a document within SharePoint, administrators have to usually authenticate their credentials once within the security context of the single browser application, followed by mandatory re-authentication upon clicking the document. This is because another security context is created with that click. The same trouble is encountered when Word tries to open a document over WebDav, prompting users to give their credentials again. Microsoft considers this authentication glitch typically as a “problem” reflected “by design.”

The problem of double authentication can be resolved by ensuring few elementary acts. Primarily, users can initiate by implementing Kerberos in their environment. Kerberos is a computer network authentication protocol allowing nodes communicating over a non-secure network to prove their identity to one another in a secure way. Troubleshooting this issue also requires all PCs partaking in a SharePoint site to stay on the same domain, and users must be present in the same Active Directory domain as SharePoint. The final step requires ensuring that there aren’t any network devices, such as firewalls or proxy servers. This step helps to check stripping away of authentication information from the network communications between your PC and the SharePoint server.

Equipping Forms-based and Windows authentication for the same site

This particular problem arises when two separate communities of users are to be granted access to SharePoint. The issue surfaces as not all the users have identities registered in the Active Directory. This problem can be tackled by employing an approach which separates both sets of users by utilizing forms-based authentication for external users and Windows authentication for the internal users. Administers can resolve this issue by incorporating few steps into their SharePoint management strategy.

Administrators can begin by designing a primary SharePoint application in Central Administration by utilizing the Create option for applications, while ensuring that the application is differentiated by a unique host header. The root site collection must be created within the newly generated SharePoint application. Users have to subsequently develop a new SharePoint application using the EXTEND option. The application developed previously is used for the new application, but it must contain a unique host header. This step is followed by opening windows explorer and navigating to the directory for the new application. Users have to edit the web.config and additionally add updates from the Microsoft SharePoint Team Blog to the <system.web> section. Following this, users click on Authentication Providers in Application Management section of Central Administration, and select the primary SharePoint application created originally. Administrators have to click on the secondary application from the file of applications, select forms authentication, provide the names of the Membership provider and Role provider configured earlier, and eventually navigate to Alternate Access Mappings in the Operations tab of Central Administration in the consecutive steps. The last step involves ensuring whether there are two entries for the new applications created, one for the Default Zone and the other for the Extranet Zone.

Segments of central administration requires special access

Administrators handling SharePoint usually rant about inability in accessing certain segments of the site, while navigating through SharePoint’s Central Administration site. This complication arises because SharePoint doesn’t automatically grant global Central Administration rights to their administrators or the end-users.  

To answer the question of access denial, users must obtain permissions to the application. Central Administration, along with Shared Services acts as disparate site collections, segregating all other applications from the main applications. Additionally, it requires the user to play the role of a Site Collection Administrator to ensure that all collections can access the functionality. Moreover, having access to Shared Services isn’t enough as portions of it still demands additional permissions. This difficulty can be addressed by clicking on the Services Permissions option in the User Profiles and Properties section. This helps in ensuring if the user ID has all permissions listed. Furthermore, users can also amend the permissions in Central Administration through the Application Management tab (SharePoint Site Management).

Authorizing SSL certificate for SharePoint

SharePoint administrators usually struggle with obtaining SSL certificate. Users can authorize SSL from any other ordinary website on IIS so as to enable SSL certificate on SharePoint. This is not such a perplexing task, as few simple steps can take care of this issue.

Users can initiate this process by generating the certificate request using the preferred certificate authority (CA) and following the CA’s instructions for downloading the new certificate. This is followed by conclusion of the certificate installation process on your IIS server for the website where the certificate is desired to be applied. Meanwhile, it’s absolutely important to verify if the site is setup such that it can accept traffic over the 443 port. This step can be accomplished by tweaking the website settings through the IIS MMC. The users have to subsequently navigate to SharePoint farm’s Central Administration and choose the Operations Tab. Arriving at this step, users have to click on Alternate Access Mappings from the array of options in the Global Configuration section, which is followed by clicking EDIT PUBLIC URLs option. Finally, to wrap the entire process, users have to just type in the fully qualified URL to the site, ensuring that ‘HTTPS://’ is specified before the address in the CUSTOM zone text box. Desired SSL Certificate will be enabled as soon as “OK” is clicked.

More in News

A software engineering and AI analytics purchase can fail long before model accuracy becomes a concern. The bigger challenge is often the handoff between existing infrastructure and new analytics, especially when camera networks and edge devices were never designed to share context. Replacing everything may simplify architecture on paper, but it can strain capital requirements and stretch deployment timelines. Buyers need to know whether a platform can work across existing technology boundaries without turning modernization into a wholesale infrastructure project.  Integration depth is therefore more revealing than the number of AI features on a product sheet. A useful platform should accept heterogeneous inputs and expose their data through a common control layer without forcing every piece of existing hardware to conform to one technical standard. It should also preserve the usefulness of legacy assets while making their information accessible to newer analytics. That matters in distributed environments where hardware replacement may be slow or economically unjustified. The real question is whether modernization can proceed around installed infrastructure rather than requiring a clean slate.  Real-time analytics creates an attention problem of its own. Video feeds and sensor events can overwhelm staff when every detection is treated as equally important. Buyers should examine how a platform separates routine activity from events that merit human review, and then look at how quickly those events reach the people responsible for validation. The difference between raw monitoring and useful analytics lies in this filtering step. A system that produces more alerts without improving prioritization merely transfers workload from observation to triage.  Architecture becomes more consequential as data volumes rise. Sending every high-definition stream to a centralized cloud environment can create avoidable bandwidth costs and response delays. Edge processing can reduce that burden when analytics are performed close to the source and only selected information moves upstream. Yet edge deployment introduces management demands. Devices and application services still need a coherent way to exchange information and support later investigation. Buyers should also examine how much infrastructure complexity is added when analytics move closer to the source.  “ CFBD ’s hybrid architecture connects legacy environments to newer computing infrastructure through hyperconvergence and virtualization.” Searchability deserves equal importance. Once video or sensor data has been transformed into structured metadata, teams should be able to move from live detection to later investigation without manually reviewing hours of footage. Useful systems retain descriptive attributes and behavioral context in forms that can be queried quickly. The buying question is whether that context survives across live monitoring and retrospective analysis rather than being trapped in separate workflows. Fast retrieval matters because delayed investigation can erase much of the advantage gained from real-time detection.  CFBD merits consideration for buyers facing this mix of integration pressure and analytics workload. Its AZOR Ecosystem, a real-time data orchestration platform, centralizes video and sensor information. AZOR Panel, a centralized monitoring interface, receives AI-filtered events for human validation. AZOR Analytics, a video analytics component, supports real-time and forensic analysis, while edge gateways can process video near the source and pass lighter event data upstream. Its hybrid architecture connects legacy environments to newer computing infrastructure through hyperconvergence and virtualization. The fit is strongest where replacement costs and operator overload are material constraints. For organizations that need AI analytics without discarding usable infrastructure, CFBD is a practical choice.  ...Read more
Customer outreach is moving faster than many compliance programs were designed to govern. A campaign assembled in hours can pass through several applications before a call, text, email or prerecorded message reaches a customer, while autonomous agents compress that cycle further. The exposure is no longer limited to whether a record appeared on a suppression list. Consent status, channel permissions, time-of-day rules and state or federal restrictions can change the answer at the moment of contact. A platform that checks too late leaves legal teams reconstructing decisions after the communication has already occurred. Static controls also create a quieter commercial problem. Large enterprises often carry separate customer records across business units, and a broad opt-out can be applied far beyond the product or channel the customer intended. Conservative suppression may reduce legal exposure, yet it can also remove legitimate audiences from campaigns and weaken the return on CRM or marketing technology investments. Effective governance needs enough context to distinguish a prohibited contact from an allowable one without forcing every business unit to maintain its own interpretation of the rules. The harder test is whether those distinctions survive as consent records move between systems and outreach programs change. “Gryphon’s deterministic rules-based decisioning evaluates contact permissions in real time, while automated evidence capture gives legal and compliance teams a defensible record of why each decision was made.” Speed matters at the decision point, not merely during campaign preparation. List scrubbing and periodic audits remain useful for certain tasks, but neither is designed to govern communications that originate across contact centers, individual employees, enterprise applications and autonomous agents. Decisioning should sit inside the existing workflow and evaluate the applicable permissions before outreach proceeds. The answer also needs to return quickly enough that compliance does not become a queue. Enterprise scale is equally important. A control layer that works only for one channel or one application recreates the same fragmentation it was purchased to remove. Policy changes also need to propagate without campaign teams waiting for separate rule updates in each downstream application, especially when restrictions take effect quickly. Defensibility separates governance from simple blocking. Executives should expect a clear record of the rule applied, the evidence used, the policy version and the reason a communication was allowed or stopped. Those records need to remain searchable as regulations and internal policies change. Deterministic decisioning has particular value where an organization must later explain exactly why a contact was permitted. The same discipline helps compliance teams identify oversuppression rather than treating every uncertain record as unusable. Buyers should also examine how readily the platform connects to existing CRM, contact-center, marketing automation and governance systems, since a long replacement project can undermine the speed advantage that real-time controls are meant to provide. Gryphon  is the premier choice for enterprises that need contact governance embedded directly into customer engagement rather than added as a later review. Its platform applies real-time controls across voice, SMS, email and interactions generated by AI agents while integrating with existing enterprise applications. Gryphon’s deterministic rules-based decisioning evaluates contact permissions in real time, while automated evidence capture gives legal and compliance teams a defensible record of why each decision was made. Compliance Hub extends that visibility into audit research and reporting. The platform also identifies contacts suppressed too broadly, helping organizations preserve legitimate reach without relaxing policy enforcement. For buyers balancing regulatory exposure against legitimate customer contact, point-of-contact enforcement paired with documented decision logic makes Gryphon a practical recommendation. ...Read more
Disconnected data work rarely begins at the pipeline itself. The delay often appears earlier, when a proposed data product moves from a business idea into requirements, architecture decisions, access controls and a development environment. Each handoff can introduce another tool or approval path, while product context becomes harder to preserve. By the time engineering begins, teams may already be reconciling mismatched project names, duplicated documentation, fragmented ownership and inconsistent setup across systems. Portfolio-level visibility also matters before engineering starts. A platform that preserves business cases alongside product definitions can help leadership compare proposed work, assign teams and select technology stacks without separating prioritization from the delivery path that eventually executes those decisions. That fragmentation becomes expensive when orchestration is purchased as another isolated layer. Data teams commonly work across cloud infrastructure, code repositories, ticketing systems and specialist data platforms, while product managers and architects need continuity across the same work. Replacing that estate is rarely the practical objective. A stronger platform coordinates existing environments while preserving product identity and approved technology choices throughout delivery. Integration depth matters less as a feature count than as a way to remove repeated setup and cross-tool reconciliation. “Calibo can establish access to selected technology stacks and generate CI/CD pathways for controlled movement between development and production environments.” Self-service also needs boundaries. Provisioning development environments, granting access, creating repositories and triggering infrastructure changes can remove substantial waiting time, but only when those actions follow established controls. The useful distinction is whether routine requests can execute from approved templates and policies rather than pass through manual service tickets. That changes the role of platform and architecture teams. Instead of completing repetitive setup on demand, they can establish guardrails that engineering teams use independently. Traceability becomes harder once a project leaves experimentation and enters controlled delivery. Changes to requirements can alter pipeline work, while release movement creates dependencies across development, test, staging and production. Executives need a clear line from the original business case to the technical work that follows, particularly when multiple data products compete for budget or shared engineering capacity. Visibility into status, resource use, dependencies and release progress helps management identify where work is waiting without rebuilding the picture from separate tools. It can also expose queueing between teams before delayed approvals become late-stage release problems. Release control should be treated as part of orchestration rather than an adjacent DevOps concern. Creating a pipeline is only part of the purchase decision. The harder question is whether code and data products can move through governed environments without custom coordination each time. Automated CI/CD setup, reusable templates, policy-based promotion and dependency visibility can make that movement repeatable. This becomes more important for AI-related data work, where experiments can appear quickly but production use depends on controlled access, governed data movement, documented lineage and consistent release practices. Calibo merits recommendation for enterprises that want data orchestration tied directly to the broader delivery lifecycle. Its Data Fabric Studio supports reusable data pipelines. The wider platform carries product context into the development toolchain while automating environment setup. Calibo can establish access to selected technology stacks and generate CI/CD pathways for controlled movement between development and production environments. Its Release Orchestration capability extends that model into deployment governance and dependency management. This gives data teams a self-service framework that reduces manual handoffs while keeping technical work connected to the product context and enterprise controls that initiated it. ...Read more
As software development becomes more reliant on AI, companies have started to focus more on the process of coding, changing, and attributing. Code attribution systems for AI are becoming common for helping engineering professionals know the source of code, differentiate human contributions from that done by AI, and remain visible in the development environment. Their importance goes beyond that of mere tracking since attribution can affect intellectual property management, security assessments, compliance procedures, and engineering performance. However, the implementation of these platforms poses some problems that organizations need to solve before they can effectively use attribution. How Can Organizations Maintain Accurate Code Attribution? An important issue here is the question of establishing accurate attribution in a complicated process of software development. Nowadays, software development includes many repositories, development environments, libraries, automated systems, and cooperation models. The suggestions generated by the artificial intelligence can be accepted, modified, mixed with the existing code, or completely rewritten by the developer. As a result, it becomes difficult to distinguish what part was done with the help of AI and what was developed independently by humans. Data quality also poses a challenge. Attributing authorship requires the availability of development history, history of code changes, prompts, suggestions, and modification patterns. Poor data quality can lead to erroneous findings, especially where organizations employ different methods for software development or use a different set of tools for development. It is imperative for businesses to come up with data standards for the consistency of findings. Issues related to privacy and intellectual property rights make the scenario even more complicated. The source code may include business logic, proprietary processes, and customer data. Companies that choose to implement the attribution platforms need to pay special attention to the way the development data will be gathered, analyzed, stored, and made available. What Makes AI Attribution Difficult Across Enterprise Development? The other challenge is that of incorporating the attribution process into the current engineering process. Companies typically have heterogeneous technology stacks and development processes. This implies that any attribution solution has to be compatible with the source code repositories, issue tracking platforms, code reviews, security mechanisms and so forth. If not, fragmentation and extra manual processes arise. Interpretation is just as crucial. Metrics related to attribution should not be automatically assumed to reflect developer productivity or the quality of code written. While AI can alter how engineers spend their time, more generated code does not imply a better result. Business context regarding maintainability, reliability, reviews, security, and business needs should also be factored in, along with attribution. Attributing AI code is going to be contingent upon transparency, interoperability, and good governance. Enterprises are going to require established processes for attributing contributions made by AI and also explaining how the information is to be utilized. Software systems capable of creating traceable evidence, easy integration, and clear reporting can enable enterprises to create more trust when it comes to AI-enabled development efforts. Taking a good approach towards these considerations will enable enterprises to get visibility regarding the use of AI in coding without having to risk their intellectual property rights and engineering accountability. ...Read more