Changes for page How to start an XWiki access-rights review
Last modified by Agnease on 2026/06/08 18:37
Summary
-
Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Page properties
-
- Content
-
... ... @@ -1,475 +1,0 @@ 1 -{{velocity}} 2 -#set ($discard = $xwiki.ssx.use('PublicWebSite.WebHome')) 3 -{{html clean="false"}} 4 - 5 - <section class="resource-header" aria-labelledby="hero-title"> 6 - <div class="container"> 7 - <div class="text-center"> 8 - <div class="hero-kicker"> 9 - <i class="fa fa-search" aria-hidden="true"></i> 10 - XWiki access-rights review 11 - </div> 12 - </div> 13 - 14 - <h1 id="hero-title">How to start an XWiki access-rights review</h1> 15 - 16 - <p class="resource-summary"> 17 - A practical first step for identifying local rights, old groups, sensitive permissions and unclear access exceptions 18 - before they become a security or maintenance problem. 19 - </p> 20 - </div> 21 - </section> 22 - 23 - <section class="resource-page"> 24 - <div class="container"> 25 - <div class="resource-layout"> 26 - 27 - <aside class="resource-sidebar" aria-label="Page summary"> 28 - <h4>In this guide</h4> 29 - <ul> 30 - <li><a href="#why-review">Why review access rights</a></li> 31 - <li><a href="#access-model">Start with the model</a></li> 32 - <li><a href="#review-groups">Review groups</a></li> 33 - <li><a href="#find-local-rights">Find local rights</a></li> 34 - <li><a href="#sensitive-rights">Sensitive rights</a></li> 35 - <li><a href="#document-findings">Document findings</a></li> 36 - <li><a href="#review-checklist">Checklist</a></li> 37 - <li><a href="#access-review-faq">FAQ</a></li> 38 - </ul> 39 - </aside> 40 - 41 - <article class="resource-content"> 42 - 43 - <p> 44 - Many XWiki permission issues are not visible from the homepage. Users can log in, pages can be edited, 45 - search can work correctly, and the wiki may still contain access rules that nobody fully understands anymore. 46 - </p> 47 - 48 - <p> 49 - This usually happens slowly. A team needs access, a page is restricted, a group is created, an exception is 50 - added, an external user is invited, and after a few years the access model becomes difficult to explain. 51 - </p> 52 - 53 - <div class="resource-note"> 54 - <p> 55 - <strong>In practice:</strong> an XWiki access-rights review should start by understanding the intended 56 - access model, then checking groups, local page rights, inherited permissions, powerful rights, inactive users 57 - and undocumented exceptions. 58 - </p> 59 - </div> 60 - 61 - <p> 62 - An XWiki access-rights review is a structured check of how users and groups receive permissions across the wiki. 63 - It helps administrators understand who can access what, why access was granted, which permissions are inherited, 64 - and where local exceptions may create risk or confusion. 65 - </p> 66 - 67 - <div class="resource-note"> 68 - <p> 69 - <strong>The main point:</strong> the goal is not only to find permission problems. The goal is to make the 70 - access model easier to explain, maintain and review over time. 71 - </p> 72 - </div> 73 - 74 - <h2 id="why-review">Why an access-rights review matters</h2> 75 - 76 - <p> 77 - XWiki is often used for internal knowledge, project documentation, procedures, HR content, customer information, 78 - technical documentation, controlled documents or business-critical workflows. When the content becomes important, 79 - the access model becomes important too. 80 - </p> 81 - 82 - <p> 83 - A permission setup can be technically valid and still be difficult to govern. For example, rights may be assigned 84 - to individual users instead of groups, old project groups may still have access, or page-level exceptions may 85 - override the expected inherited model. 86 - </p> 87 - 88 - <p> 89 - For a broader view of security-related checks, see 90 - <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-security-review')">what an XWiki security review should actually include</a>. 91 - </p> 92 - 93 - <h2 id="access-model">1. Start with the access model, not with the UI</h2> 94 - 95 - <p> 96 - Before changing permissions, clarify what the wiki should look like from an access perspective. Otherwise, 97 - the review becomes a list of isolated technical checks without a clear target. 98 - </p> 99 - 100 - <p> 101 - A simple model is often enough. Separate the wiki into clear areas such as open internal knowledge, 102 - team spaces, restricted projects, confidential documents, technical administration pages and external 103 - collaboration areas. 104 - </p> 105 - 106 - <table class="table table-bordered table-striped"> 107 - <thead> 108 - <tr> 109 - <th>Area type</th> 110 - <th>Typical access</th> 111 - <th>Review question</th> 112 - </tr> 113 - </thead> 114 - <tbody> 115 - <tr> 116 - <td>Open internal knowledge</td> 117 - <td>Most authenticated users can view, selected users can edit</td> 118 - <td>Is this content really safe for broad internal access?</td> 119 - </tr> 120 - <tr> 121 - <td>Team or project spaces</td> 122 - <td>Team members can edit, others may only view</td> 123 - <td>Are the groups still aligned with the current team?</td> 124 - </tr> 125 - <tr> 126 - <td>Restricted projects</td> 127 - <td>Only selected groups can view or edit</td> 128 - <td>Is access granted through groups or individual users?</td> 129 - </tr> 130 - <tr> 131 - <td>Confidential documents</td> 132 - <td>Small controlled group</td> 133 - <td>Who owns the restriction and when was it last reviewed?</td> 134 - </tr> 135 - <tr> 136 - <td>Technical administration pages</td> 137 - <td>Trusted administrators only</td> 138 - <td>Are admin, script and programming rights limited?</td> 139 - </tr> 140 - </tbody> 141 - </table> 142 - 143 - <h2 id="review-groups">2. Review groups before reviewing pages</h2> 144 - 145 - <p> 146 - In most XWiki instances, groups should be the foundation of the permission model. Rights assigned directly to 147 - individual users are harder to maintain because people change roles, leave the organization or move between teams. 148 - </p> 149 - 150 - <p> 151 - Start by reviewing which groups exist, what they are used for and whether their members still match the intended 152 - access model. 153 - </p> 154 - 155 - <table class="table table-bordered table-striped"> 156 - <thead> 157 - <tr> 158 - <th>Group review item</th> 159 - <th>What to check</th> 160 - <th>Possible action</th> 161 - </tr> 162 - </thead> 163 - <tbody> 164 - <tr> 165 - <td>Old project groups</td> 166 - <td>Groups created for projects that ended</td> 167 - <td>Remove access, archive the group or document why it remains active</td> 168 - </tr> 169 - <tr> 170 - <td>Inactive users</td> 171 - <td>Users who no longer need access</td> 172 - <td>Remove from groups or deactivate accounts according to policy</td> 173 - </tr> 174 - <tr> 175 - <td>Unclear group names</td> 176 - <td>Groups whose purpose is not obvious</td> 177 - <td>Rename, document or consolidate</td> 178 - </tr> 179 - <tr> 180 - <td>Overloaded groups</td> 181 - <td>Groups used for too many unrelated areas</td> 182 - <td>Split into clearer role-based or area-based groups</td> 183 - </tr> 184 - <tr> 185 - <td>Admin groups</td> 186 - <td>Groups with powerful rights</td> 187 - <td>Review membership separately and keep it limited</td> 188 - </tr> 189 - </tbody> 190 - </table> 191 - 192 - <h2 id="find-local-rights">3. Identify pages with local access rights</h2> 193 - 194 - <p> 195 - Local page-level rights are often where surprises appear. They are useful when a page or page hierarchy needs 196 - special access rules, but they can become difficult to manage when they are added repeatedly without documentation. 197 - </p> 198 - 199 - <p> 200 - The following Velocity snippet can help you start the review by listing pages that contain local 201 - <code>XWiki.XWikiRights</code> objects. It is not a complete audit, but it gives you a practical first list of 202 - places where local rights may exist. 203 - </p> 204 - 205 -{{code}} 206 -{{velocity}} 207 -#set ($query = "select distinct doc.fullName from XWikiDocument doc, BaseObject obj where obj.name = doc.fullName and obj.className = 'XWiki.XWikiRights' order by doc.fullName asc") 208 -#set ($pages = $services.query.xwql($query).execute()) 209 - 210 -#if ($pages.isEmpty()) 211 - No pages with local XWiki rights were found. 212 -#else 213 - |= Page |= Local rights found 214 - #foreach ($page in $pages) 215 - | [[$page]] | yes 216 - #end 217 -#end 218 -{{/velocity}} 219 -{{/code}} 220 - 221 - <p> 222 - Use the result as a starting point. Each page should be reviewed in context: why local rights were added, which 223 - users or groups are affected, whether rights apply only to that page or to a hierarchy, and whether the exception 224 - is still needed. 225 - </p> 226 - 227 - <div class="resource-note"> 228 - <p> 229 - <strong>Important:</strong> a list of pages with local rights does not tell the full story. You still need to 230 - interpret inherited permissions, groups, explicit allow or deny rules, wiki-level rights and sensitive rights 231 - such as admin, script or programming. 232 - </p> 233 - </div> 234 - 235 - <div class="resource-inline-cta"> 236 - <p> 237 - <strong>Not sure where local rights are hidden?</strong> 238 - A focused access-rights review can help identify local exceptions, inherited permissions, old groups and 239 - sensitive rights that should be cleaned up or documented. 240 - </p> 241 - <a class="btn btn-primary" href="$xwiki.getURL('contact.WebHome')">Request an access review</a> 242 - </div> 243 - 244 - <h2 id="sensitive-rights">4. Pay special attention to sensitive rights</h2> 245 - 246 - <p> 247 - Not all rights have the same impact. View, comment and edit rights affect content collaboration. Administration, 248 - script and programming rights can have a broader technical and security impact and should be reviewed separately. 249 - </p> 250 - 251 - <p> 252 - A user with powerful rights may be able to change configuration, execute advanced scripts, affect other users or 253 - influence how content is rendered. These rights should be granted intentionally, limited to trusted users and 254 - documented as part of the administration model. 255 - </p> 256 - 257 - <table class="table table-bordered table-striped"> 258 - <thead> 259 - <tr> 260 - <th>Right type</th> 261 - <th>Why it matters</th> 262 - <th>Review approach</th> 263 - </tr> 264 - </thead> 265 - <tbody> 266 - <tr> 267 - <td>Admin</td> 268 - <td>Can control important wiki configuration and rights</td> 269 - <td>Keep limited and review membership regularly</td> 270 - </tr> 271 - <tr> 272 - <td>Script</td> 273 - <td>Can allow advanced scripting behavior depending on context</td> 274 - <td>Grant only to users who understand the technical impact</td> 275 - </tr> 276 - <tr> 277 - <td>Programming</td> 278 - <td>Can be highly sensitive and should be reserved for trusted technical administrators</td> 279 - <td>Review separately from normal editing permissions</td> 280 - </tr> 281 - <tr> 282 - <td>Edit</td> 283 - <td>Allows content changes and may affect business processes</td> 284 - <td>Assign through groups and validate restricted areas</td> 285 - </tr> 286 - <tr> 287 - <td>View</td> 288 - <td>Controls access to content and confidential information</td> 289 - <td>Review public, internal and restricted areas carefully</td> 290 - </tr> 291 - </tbody> 292 - </table> 293 - 294 - <h2 id="document-findings">5. Document the findings</h2> 295 - 296 - <p> 297 - An access-rights review should not end with a few manual changes. The result should be documented so that the 298 - next administrator understands what was found, what was changed and what still needs attention. 299 - </p> 300 - 301 - <p> 302 - A simple review register can be enough. The goal is to record the affected area, the current access model, the 303 - risk, the owner and the recommended action. 304 - </p> 305 - 306 - <table class="table table-bordered table-striped"> 307 - <thead> 308 - <tr> 309 - <th>Area or page</th> 310 - <th>Current access</th> 311 - <th>Risk or concern</th> 312 - <th>Recommended action</th> 313 - <th>Owner</th> 314 - <th>Review date</th> 315 - </tr> 316 - </thead> 317 - <tbody> 318 - <tr> 319 - <td>Example.ProjectSpace</td> 320 - <td>Old project group can still view</td> 321 - <td>Project ended, access may no longer be needed</td> 322 - <td>Confirm owner and remove group if obsolete</td> 323 - <td>Project owner</td> 324 - <td>YYYY-MM-DD</td> 325 - </tr> 326 - <tr> 327 - <td>Example.ConfidentialDocs</td> 328 - <td>Individual users have direct rights</td> 329 - <td>Difficult to maintain when roles change</td> 330 - <td>Move access to a dedicated group</td> 331 - <td>Content owner</td> 332 - <td>YYYY-MM-DD</td> 333 - </tr> 334 - </tbody> 335 - </table> 336 - 337 - <h2 id="review-checklist">XWiki access-rights review checklist</h2> 338 - 339 - <p> 340 - A practical review should combine technical checks with governance questions. The following checklist can be 341 - used as a starting point before changing permissions in production. 342 - </p> 343 - 344 - <ul class="resource-checklist"> 345 - <li>Identify public, internal, restricted and administrative areas.</li> 346 - <li>List active groups and clarify what each group is used for.</li> 347 - <li>Review old groups, inactive users and temporary access.</li> 348 - <li>Identify pages with local XWiki rights objects.</li> 349 - <li>Review page-level exceptions and inherited permissions.</li> 350 - <li>Check whether rights are assigned to groups rather than individual users.</li> 351 - <li>Review admin, script and programming rights separately.</li> 352 - <li>Check authentication and group synchronization if LDAP, SSO, OIDC or SAML is used.</li> 353 - <li>Document findings, owners, risks and recommended actions.</li> 354 - <li>Schedule a periodic access-rights review.</li> 355 - </ul> 356 - 357 - <h2 id="access-review-faq">XWiki access-rights review FAQ</h2> 358 - 359 - <details class="resource-faq-item" open> 360 - <summary>Is listing pages with local rights enough for an access audit?</summary> 361 - <p> 362 - No. It is only a starting point. A complete review should also consider inherited permissions, group 363 - membership, wiki-level rights, explicit allow or deny rules, sensitive rights and the business reason behind 364 - each restricted area. 365 - </p> 366 - </details> 367 - 368 - <details class="resource-faq-item"> 369 - <summary>Should XWiki rights be assigned directly to users?</summary> 370 - <p> 371 - In most cases, rights should be assigned through groups. Direct user rights can be useful in rare situations, 372 - but they are harder to maintain and should be reviewed carefully. 373 - </p> 374 - </details> 375 - 376 - <details class="resource-faq-item"> 377 - <summary>What is the most common access-rights problem in XWiki?</summary> 378 - <p> 379 - A common issue is the accumulation of undocumented exceptions: old groups, page-level rights, inherited 380 - permissions and direct user rights that were correct at the time but are no longer clearly understood. 381 - </p> 382 - </details> 383 - 384 - <details class="resource-faq-item"> 385 - <summary>Should access rights be reviewed before an XWiki upgrade?</summary> 386 - <p> 387 - Yes. Upgrades are a good moment to review permissions, especially for business-critical instances. The review 388 - can reveal old groups, sensitive rights, custom scripts and restricted areas that should be validated during 389 - the upgrade process. 390 - </p> 391 - </details> 392 - 393 - <details class="resource-faq-item"> 394 - <summary>Does SSO replace an access-rights review?</summary> 395 - <p> 396 - No. SSO helps authenticate users, but XWiki authorization still depends on groups, rights, inheritance and 397 - page-level exceptions. Authentication and access control should be reviewed together. 398 - </p> 399 - </details> 400 - 401 - <div class="resource-note"> 402 - <p> 403 - Related resources: 404 - <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-access-rights-governance')">why XWiki access rights need a clear governance model</a>, 405 - <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-security-review')">what an XWiki security review should actually include</a> 406 - and 407 - <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.why-upgrade-xwiki')">why regular XWiki upgrades matter</a>. 408 - </p> 409 - </div> 410 - 411 - <div class="resource-cta"> 412 - <h3>Need help reviewing XWiki access rights?</h3> 413 - <p> 414 - If your XWiki instance has grown over time, uses many groups, contains restricted areas or depends on LDAP, 415 - SSO, OIDC or SAML, an access-rights review can help identify unclear permissions and define a safer model. 416 - </p> 417 - <a class="btn btn-primary" href="$xwiki.getURL('contact.WebHome')">Request an access-rights review</a> 418 - </div> 419 - 420 - </article> 421 - </div> 422 - </div> 423 - </section> 424 - 425 - <script type="application/ld+json"> 426 - { 427 - "@context": "https://schema.org", 428 - "@type": "FAQPage", 429 - "mainEntity": [ 430 - { 431 - "@type": "Question", 432 - "name": "Is listing pages with local rights enough for an access audit?", 433 - "acceptedAnswer": { 434 - "@type": "Answer", 435 - "text": "No. It is only a starting point. A complete review should also consider inherited permissions, group membership, wiki-level rights, explicit allow or deny rules, sensitive rights and the business reason behind each restricted area." 436 - } 437 - }, 438 - { 439 - "@type": "Question", 440 - "name": "Should XWiki rights be assigned directly to users?", 441 - "acceptedAnswer": { 442 - "@type": "Answer", 443 - "text": "In most cases, rights should be assigned through groups. Direct user rights can be useful in rare situations, but they are harder to maintain and should be reviewed carefully." 444 - } 445 - }, 446 - { 447 - "@type": "Question", 448 - "name": "What is the most common access-rights problem in XWiki?", 449 - "acceptedAnswer": { 450 - "@type": "Answer", 451 - "text": "A common issue is the accumulation of undocumented exceptions: old groups, page-level rights, inherited permissions and direct user rights that were correct at the time but are no longer clearly understood." 452 - } 453 - }, 454 - { 455 - "@type": "Question", 456 - "name": "Should access rights be reviewed before an XWiki upgrade?", 457 - "acceptedAnswer": { 458 - "@type": "Answer", 459 - "text": "Yes. Upgrades are a good moment to review permissions, especially for business-critical instances. The review can reveal old groups, sensitive rights, custom scripts and restricted areas that should be validated during the upgrade process." 460 - } 461 - }, 462 - { 463 - "@type": "Question", 464 - "name": "Does SSO replace an access-rights review?", 465 - "acceptedAnswer": { 466 - "@type": "Answer", 467 - "text": "No. SSO helps authenticate users, but XWiki authorization still depends on groups, rights, inheritance and page-level exceptions. Authentication and access control should be reviewed together." 468 - } 469 - } 470 - ] 471 - } 472 - </script> 473 - 474 -{{/html}} 475 -{{/velocity}}