[Feature Request]: Protected 'blocks' of content #2576

New Issue

OVERLORD · 2026-02-05T04:32:57+03:00

OVERLORD commented

2026-02-05 04:32:57 +03:00

Originally created by @JoeIzzard on GitHub (Jan 14, 2022).

Describe the feature you'd like

The ability to set certain parts of a page to a different permission level. For example a page where most of the content can be viewed publicly but a certain section is restricted to only a certain role.

Describe the benefits this feature would bring to BookStack users

Currently if certain information should only be viewed by a specific role, that would require a separate page with page level permissions, which works in a lot of cases. However, with this method all the content that should be on a page can be kept together with just a certain section restricted.

Additional context

Not the best example, but take a page describing how to reset your password on a certain service. Most of the page can be public, how the end user can reset their own password, change it if they know it etc, but the section that talks about how to reset the password of an account as an admin of the service should be restricted to only the admins to see. This allows you to keep the entire 'Reset Password' documentation in one page, and not forgo any security or permissions settings.

One caveat would be in editing. The edit ability for the page would still likely have to lie with the Page Permissions, but you could work around that by displaying a warning that sensitive information can be revealed when editing and such.

Originally created by @JoeIzzard on GitHub (Jan 14, 2022). ### Describe the feature you'd like The ability to set certain parts of a page to a different permission level. For example a page where most of the content can be viewed publicly but a certain section is restricted to only a certain role. ### Describe the benefits this feature would bring to BookStack users Currently if certain information should only be viewed by a specific role, that would require a separate page with page level permissions, which works in a lot of cases. However, with this method all the content that should be on a page can be kept together with just a certain section restricted. ### Additional context Not the best example, but take a page describing how to reset your password on a certain service. Most of the page can be public, how the end user can reset their own password, change it if they know it etc, but the section that talks about how to reset the password of an account as an admin of the service should be restricted to only the admins to see. This allows you to keep the entire 'Reset Password' documentation in one page, and not forgo any security or permissions settings. One caveat would be in editing. The edit ability for the page would still likely have to lie with the Page Permissions, but you could work around that by displaying a warning that sensitive information can be revealed when editing and such.

OVERLORD added the 🌔 Out of scope 🔨 Feature Request labels 2026-02-05 04:32:57 +03:00

OVERLORD closed this issue

2026-02-05 04:33:00 +03:00

OVERLORD commented

2026-02-05 04:33:05 +03:00

@ssddanbrown commented on GitHub (Jan 14, 2022):

Thanks for the request @JoeIzzard.
This has been previously requested within #978 which mentions a method to achieve this with current functionality.
Unless there's further context to add upon that I'll likely look to close this off as out of scope with the same reasoning as given on #978.

@ssddanbrown commented on GitHub (Jan 14, 2022): Thanks for the request @JoeIzzard. This has been previously requested within #978 which mentions a method to achieve this with current functionality. Unless there's further context to add upon that I'll likely look to close this off as out of scope with the same reasoning as given on #978.

OVERLORD commented

2026-02-05 04:33:07 +03:00

@JoeIzzard commented on GitHub (Jan 14, 2022):

Thanks for the pointer! I had searched but nothing came up similar, nice to see a workaround that will do.

@JoeIzzard commented on GitHub (Jan 14, 2022): Thanks for the pointer! I had searched but nothing came up similar, nice to see a workaround that will do.

OVERLORD commented

2026-02-05 04:33:11 +03:00

@ssddanbrown commented on GitHub (Jan 16, 2022):

No worries, will therefore close this off.

@ssddanbrown commented on GitHub (Jan 16, 2022): No worries, will therefore close this off.

Sign in to join this conversation.

Branches Tags

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/BookStack#2576