Skip to Content
Last modified by Agnease on 2026/06/08 18:44
From version 3.11
edited by Agnease
on 2026/06/08 18:30
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 1.1
edited by Agnease
on 2026/05/26 07:41
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -What an XWiki Security Review Should Actually Include
1 +xwiki-security-review
Content
... ... @@ -1,396 +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-shield" aria-hidden="true"></i>
10 - XWiki security review
11 - </div>
12 - </div>
13 -
14 - <h1 id="hero-title">What an XWiki security review should actually include</h1>
15 -
16 - <p class="resource-summary">
17 - A working XWiki instance is not automatically a secure one. A proper review should look at versions,
18 - access rights, authentication, extensions, custom code, infrastructure and operational practices.
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-it-matters">Why it matters</a></li>
31 - <li><a href="#what-to-review">What to review</a></li>
32 - <li><a href="#security-checklist">Security checklist</a></li>
33 - <li><a href="#review-output">What the review should produce</a></li>
34 - <li><a href="#when-to-review">When to run a review</a></li>
35 - <li><a href="#security-review-faq">FAQ</a></li>
36 - </ul>
37 - </aside>
38 -
39 - <article class="resource-content">
40 -
41 - <p>
42 - Many XWiki instances continue to work well from a user perspective while slowly accumulating security
43 - and governance risks. Users can still log in, search, edit pages and access documents, but that does not
44 - always mean the instance is properly secured or easy to maintain.
45 - </p>
46 -
47 - <p>
48 - An XWiki security review is a practical audit of the platform configuration, access model,
49 - authentication setup, installed extensions, custom code, infrastructure and recovery procedures.
50 - </p>
51 -
52 - <p>
53 - Security risks are often hidden in less visible areas: outdated versions, inherited permissions,
54 - forgotten administrator accounts, overly powerful rights, old extensions, undocumented scripts,
55 - weak fallback access or backup assumptions that were never tested.
56 - </p>
57 -
58 - <div class="resource-note">
59 - <p>
60 - <strong>In practice:</strong> an XWiki security review should evaluate the XWiki version,
61 - access rights, authentication setup, installed extensions, custom code, infrastructure,
62 - backups, restore expectations and the operational practices used to maintain the instance.
63 - </p>
64 - </div>
65 -
66 - <p>
67 - An XWiki security review is a structured assessment of the wiki platform, its configuration,
68 - access model, authentication mechanisms, extensions, customizations and operational setup.
69 - The goal is to identify risks, maintenance weaknesses and upgrade blockers before they affect
70 - users or business-critical content.
71 - </p>
72 -
73 - <div class="resource-note">
74 - <p>
75 - <strong>The main point:</strong> an XWiki security review should not only check whether the application
76 - is online. It should evaluate the platform, the access model and the operational practices around it.
77 - </p>
78 - </div>
79 -
80 - <h2 id="why-it-matters">Why an XWiki security review matters</h2>
81 -
82 - <p>
83 - XWiki is often used as an internal knowledge base, intranet, documentation platform or controlled
84 - document system. In these cases, the platform may contain sensitive procedures, internal decisions,
85 - customer information, technical documentation, compliance records or business-critical workflows.
86 - </p>
87 -
88 - <p>
89 - The more important the content becomes, the more important it is to understand who can access it, who can
90 - change it, which customizations influence it and how safely the instance can be upgraded or restored.
91 - </p>
92 -
93 - <p>
94 - A security review helps identify risks before they become incidents, upgrade blockers or maintenance
95 - surprises. It also gives administrators a clearer view of the current state of the instance.
96 - </p>
97 -
98 - <h2 id="what-to-review">What should be reviewed</h2>
99 -
100 - <h3>1. Version and upgrade status</h3>
101 - <p>
102 - The current XWiki version should be reviewed together with the target upgrade path, installed extensions
103 - and infrastructure dependencies. An outdated instance is not only a maintenance concern. It can also mean
104 - that security fixes, compatibility improvements and platform hardening are missing.
105 - </p>
106 -
107 - <p>
108 - The review should also check whether upgrades are performed regularly or only when something breaks.
109 - A repeatable upgrade process is part of the security posture of a long-running XWiki instance.
110 - </p>
111 -
112 - <p>
113 - For more details on upgrade planning, see
114 - <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.why-upgrade-xwiki')">why regular XWiki upgrades matter</a>.
115 - </p>
116 -
117 - <h3>2. Access rights and permission model</h3>
118 - <p>
119 - XWiki has a powerful access-rights system, but this flexibility needs a clear governance model. A review
120 - should check who has administration rights, who has script or programming rights, whether rights are
121 - assigned through groups, and whether page-level exceptions are still understandable.
122 - </p>
123 -
124 - <p>
125 - It is also important to review inherited rights, public areas, restricted spaces, old groups, inactive
126 - users and sensitive pages. Many permission problems do not come from one obvious mistake, but from years
127 - of small exceptions that nobody reviewed later.
128 - </p>
129 -
130 - <p>
131 - For a deeper look at this topic, see
132 - <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-access-rights-governance')">why XWiki access rights need a clear governance model</a>.
133 - For a practical starting point, see
134 - <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-access-rights-review')">how to start an XWiki access-rights review</a>.
135 - </p>
136 -
137 - <h3>3. Authentication and identity management</h3>
138 - <p>
139 - Authentication should be reviewed beyond the simple question of whether users can log in. LDAP, Active
140 - Directory, OIDC, SAML, SSO and MFA setups all need to be checked together with group synchronization,
141 - fallback login options, local administrator accounts and recovery procedures.
142 - </p>
143 -
144 - <p>
145 - SSO is useful, but it does not automatically guarantee a clean access model. Authentication confirms who
146 - the user is. Authorization still depends on how XWiki groups and rights are configured.
147 - </p>
148 -
149 - <h3>4. Extensions and custom code</h3>
150 - <p>
151 - Installed extensions, custom applications, Velocity scripts, Groovy scripts, macros, sheets, templates,
152 - UI extensions and Java components are all part of the security and maintenance surface of the instance.
153 - </p>
154 -
155 - <p>
156 - A review should identify what is installed, what is customized, what is still used, what is documented and
157 - what needs special validation during upgrades. Custom code should be tracked, explained and tested, not
158 - discovered accidentally during an incident or a production upgrade.
159 - </p>
160 -
161 - <p>
162 - Customizations should also be reviewed from a maintenance perspective. See
163 - <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-custom-development')">how to keep XWiki custom development maintainable across upgrades</a>.
164 - </p>
165 -
166 - <h3>5. Configuration, infrastructure and operations</h3>
167 - <p>
168 - The review should also cover the environment around XWiki: HTTPS and reverse proxy configuration, database
169 - access, filesystem and attachment storage, mail configuration, PDF export services, logs, monitoring,
170 - server access and separation between production and staging.
171 - </p>
172 -
173 - <p>
174 - Backups should be reviewed together with restore expectations. A backup strategy is incomplete if nobody
175 - knows what is included, how long recovery would take or whether the restore process has ever been tested.
176 - </p>
177 -
178 - <div class="resource-inline-cta">
179 - <p>
180 - <strong>Need a clearer view of your XWiki security posture?</strong>
181 - A structured review can check versions, access rights, authentication,
182 - extensions, custom code, infrastructure, backups and operational practices.
183 - </p>
184 - <a class="btn btn-default" href="$xwiki.getURL('contact.WebHome')">Request a security review</a>
185 - </div>
186 -
187 - <h2 id="security-checklist">XWiki security review checklist</h2>
188 -
189 - <p>
190 - A practical XWiki security review should cover both application-level and operational risks.
191 - The following checklist can be used as a starting point when reviewing a production instance.
192 - </p>
193 -
194 - <ul class="resource-checklist">
195 - <li>Check the current XWiki version, target version and upgrade path.</li>
196 - <li>Review installed extensions, outdated components and unsupported customizations.</li>
197 - <li>Audit administrator, script and programming rights.</li>
198 - <li>Review groups, inherited permissions and page-level exceptions.</li>
199 - <li>Validate authentication, SSO, MFA, fallback access and administrator recovery options.</li>
200 - <li>Identify custom scripts, templates, macros, UI extensions and Java components.</li>
201 - <li>Review public, internal and restricted areas.</li>
202 - <li>Check infrastructure, HTTPS, reverse proxy, database, filesystem and mail configuration.</li>
203 - <li>Confirm backup coverage, restore expectations and rollback procedures.</li>
204 - <li>Document findings and prioritize remediation actions.</li>
205 - </ul>
206 -
207 - <h2 id="review-output">What the review should produce</h2>
208 -
209 - <p>
210 - A useful security review should not only produce a list of detected problems. It should produce a practical action
211 - plan. Each finding should explain the risk, the affected area, the recommended action and the priority.
212 - </p>
213 -
214 - <p>
215 - Some findings may require immediate action, such as exposed administration rights or unsafe fallback
216 - access. Others may become planned improvements, such as cleaning old groups, documenting custom code,
217 - reviewing extensions or preparing the next upgrade.
218 - </p>
219 -
220 - <div class="resource-note">
221 - <p>
222 - <strong>A useful review should separate findings by priority:</strong> immediate risks,
223 - planned remediation, maintenance improvements and documentation gaps. This makes the result
224 - easier to act on instead of producing a generic list of observations.
225 - </p>
226 - </div>
227 -
228 - <p>
229 - The best outcome is a clearer, safer and more maintainable XWiki instance: one where administrators
230 - understand the access model, critical features are documented and future upgrades can be planned with
231 - fewer surprises.
232 - </p>
233 -
234 - <h2 id="when-to-review">When should an XWiki security review be done?</h2>
235 -
236 - <p>
237 - A review is especially useful before a major upgrade, after years of organic growth, after an authentication
238 - change, before exposing the instance more broadly, after a migration, or when the wiki becomes more
239 - business-critical than it was when first installed.
240 - </p>
241 -
242 - <p>
243 - It is also useful when administration responsibilities change. A new team should not have to guess how
244 - permissions, extensions, customizations and recovery procedures were configured years earlier.
245 - </p>
246 -
247 - <div class="resource-note related-resources">
248 - <p><strong>Security review series:</strong></p>
249 - <ul>
250 - <li>
251 - <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-security-review')">What an XWiki security review should actually include</a>
252 - </li>
253 - <li>
254 - <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-access-rights-governance')">Why XWiki access rights need a clear governance model</a>
255 - </li>
256 - <li>
257 - <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-access-rights-review')">How to start an XWiki access-rights review</a>
258 - </li>
259 - </ul>
260 - <p>
261 - Future topics will cover authentication and access control, script and programming rights,
262 - backup validation, extension review and operational practices.
263 - </p>
264 - </div>
265 -
266 - <h2 id="security-review-faq">XWiki security review FAQ</h2>
267 -
268 - <details class="resource-faq-item" open>
269 - <summary>What should an XWiki security review include?</summary>
270 - <p>
271 - An XWiki security review should include the installed XWiki version, upgrade path,
272 - access rights, groups, authentication setup, installed extensions, custom code,
273 - infrastructure, backups, restore expectations and operational procedures.
274 - </p>
275 - </details>
276 -
277 - <details class="resource-faq-item">
278 - <summary>Is an updated XWiki instance automatically secure?</summary>
279 - <p>
280 - No. Updating XWiki is important, but security also depends on permissions,
281 - authentication, extensions, custom code, infrastructure configuration, backups
282 - and how the instance is maintained.
283 - </p>
284 - </details>
285 -
286 - <details class="resource-faq-item">
287 - <summary>Does SSO solve XWiki access control?</summary>
288 - <p>
289 - No. SSO helps authenticate users, but access control still depends on XWiki groups,
290 - inherited permissions, page-level rights and administrative privileges.
291 - </p>
292 - </details>
293 -
294 - <details class="resource-faq-item">
295 - <summary>Why should custom code be reviewed?</summary>
296 - <p>
297 - Custom scripts, templates, macros, UI extensions and Java components can affect
298 - permissions, workflows, rendering, integrations and upgrade behavior. They should
299 - be identified, documented and tested.
300 - </p>
301 - </details>
302 -
303 - <details class="resource-faq-item">
304 - <summary>When should an XWiki security review be done?</summary>
305 - <p>
306 - A review is useful before a major upgrade, after years of organic growth, after
307 - authentication changes, before exposing the wiki more broadly, or when the instance
308 - becomes business-critical.
309 - </p>
310 - </details>
311 -
312 - <div class="resource-note related-resources">
313 - <p><strong>Related resources:</strong></p>
314 - <ul>
315 - <li>
316 - <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-access-rights-governance')">Why XWiki access rights need a clear governance model</a>
317 - </li>
318 - <li>
319 - <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-access-rights-review')">How to start an XWiki access-rights review</a>
320 - </li>
321 - <li>
322 - <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.why-upgrade-xwiki')">Why regular XWiki upgrades matter</a>
323 - </li>
324 - <li>
325 - <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-custom-development')">How to keep XWiki custom development maintainable across upgrades</a>
326 - </li>
327 - </ul>
328 - </div>
329 -
330 - <div class="resource-cta">
331 - <h3>Need an XWiki security review?</h3>
332 - <p>
333 - If your XWiki instance has grown over time, contains sensitive content, uses custom code or depends on
334 - SSO, extensions and business-critical workflows, a structured review can help identify risks and define
335 - the safest next steps.
336 - </p>
337 - <a class="btn btn-primary" href="$xwiki.getURL('contact.WebHome')">Request a security review</a>
338 - </div>
339 -
340 - </article>
341 -
342 - </div>
343 - </div>
344 - </section>
345 -
346 - <script type="application/ld+json">
347 - {
348 - "@context": "https://schema.org",
349 - "@type": "FAQPage",
350 - "mainEntity": [
351 - {
352 - "@type": "Question",
353 - "name": "What should an XWiki security review include?",
354 - "acceptedAnswer": {
355 - "@type": "Answer",
356 - "text": "An XWiki security review should include the installed XWiki version, upgrade path, access rights, groups, authentication setup, installed extensions, custom code, infrastructure, backups, restore expectations and operational procedures."
357 - }
358 - },
359 - {
360 - "@type": "Question",
361 - "name": "Is an updated XWiki instance automatically secure?",
362 - "acceptedAnswer": {
363 - "@type": "Answer",
364 - "text": "No. Updating XWiki is important, but security also depends on permissions, authentication, extensions, custom code, infrastructure configuration, backups and how the instance is maintained."
365 - }
366 - },
367 - {
368 - "@type": "Question",
369 - "name": "Does SSO solve XWiki access control?",
370 - "acceptedAnswer": {
371 - "@type": "Answer",
372 - "text": "No. SSO helps authenticate users, but access control still depends on XWiki groups, inherited permissions, page-level rights and administrative privileges."
373 - }
374 - },
375 - {
376 - "@type": "Question",
377 - "name": "Why should custom code be reviewed in XWiki?",
378 - "acceptedAnswer": {
379 - "@type": "Answer",
380 - "text": "Custom scripts, templates, macros, UI extensions and Java components can affect permissions, workflows, rendering, integrations and upgrade behavior. They should be identified, documented and tested."
381 - }
382 - },
383 - {
384 - "@type": "Question",
385 - "name": "When should an XWiki security review be done?",
386 - "acceptedAnswer": {
387 - "@type": "Answer",
388 - "text": "A review is useful before a major upgrade, after years of organic growth, after authentication changes, before exposing the wiki more broadly, or when the instance becomes business-critical."
389 - }
390 - }
391 - ]
392 - }
393 - </script>
394 -
395 -{{/html}}
396 -{{/velocity}}
xwiki-security-review.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.Admin
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1.3 MB
Content
Agnease.Code.SEODetailsClass[0]
metaDescription
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Learn what an XWiki security review should include: version status, access rights, authentication, extensions, custom code, infrastructure, backups and operational practices.
metaTitle
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -What an XWiki Security Review Should Actually Include | Agnease