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 3.12
edited by Agnease
on 2026/06/08 18:44
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -28,9 +28,12 @@
28 28   <h4>In this guide</h4>
29 29   <ul>
30 30   <li><a href="#why-it-matters">Why it matters</a></li>
31 + <li><a href="#quick-self-check">Quick self-check</a></li>
31 31   <li><a href="#what-to-review">What to review</a></li>
33 + <li><a href="#common-findings">Common findings</a></li>
32 32   <li><a href="#security-checklist">Security checklist</a></li>
33 33   <li><a href="#review-output">What the review should produce</a></li>
36 + <li><a href="#readiness-checklist">What to prepare</a></li>
34 34   <li><a href="#when-to-review">When to run a review</a></li>
35 35   <li><a href="#security-review-faq">FAQ</a></li>
36 36   </ul>
... ... @@ -64,10 +64,9 @@
64 64   </div>
65 65  
66 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.
70 + The value of the review is not only to find technical issues. It is to understand how the instance is actually
71 + used, where risk has accumulated over time, and what should be cleaned up before the next upgrade, migration,
72 + authentication change or business-critical rollout.
71 71   </p>
72 72  
73 73   <div class="resource-note">
... ... @@ -91,10 +91,34 @@
91 91   </p>
92 92  
93 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 + In real XWiki instances, security problems are rarely caused by a single visible mistake. They often come from
97 + years of small configuration decisions: one temporary group, one local right exception, one old extension, one
98 + undocumented script, one backup procedure that nobody has tested recently.
96 96   </p>
97 97  
101 + <h2 id="quick-self-check">Quick self-check: does your XWiki need a security review?</h2>
102 +
103 + <p>
104 + Your XWiki instance may need a security review if one or more of these situations sound familiar.
105 + </p>
106 +
107 + <ul class="resource-checklist">
108 + <li>You are not sure who currently has admin, script or programming rights.</li>
109 + <li>The instance has not been upgraded regularly or the upgrade path is unclear.</li>
110 + <li>SSO, LDAP, OIDC or SAML was configured years ago and not reviewed recently.</li>
111 + <li>Custom scripts, templates, macros or extensions exist but are not clearly documented.</li>
112 + <li>Groups and page-level rights have grown organically over several years.</li>
113 + <li>Backups exist, but the restore process has not been tested or documented.</li>
114 + <li>A new team inherited the instance and has to guess how rights, extensions or customizations were configured.</li>
115 + </ul>
116 +
117 + <div class="resource-note">
118 + <p>
119 + <strong>Practical signal:</strong> if the instance works but nobody can clearly explain the access model,
120 + the customizations and the recovery process, the risk is not only technical. It is operational.
121 + </p>
122 + </div>
123 +
98 98   <h2 id="what-to-review">What should be reviewed</h2>
99 99  
100 100   <h3>1. Version and upgrade status</h3>
... ... @@ -184,6 +184,38 @@
184 184   <a class="btn btn-default" href="$xwiki.getURL('contact.WebHome')">Request a security review</a>
185 185   </div>
186 186  
213 + <h2 id="common-findings">Common findings in real XWiki security reviews</h2>
214 +
215 + <p>
216 + In real XWiki instances, security risks are often not caused by one major mistake. They usually come from
217 + configuration decisions that were reasonable at the time but were never reviewed together later.
218 + </p>
219 +
220 + <ul class="resource-checklist">
221 + <li>Old administrator accounts that are still active.</li>
222 + <li>Script or programming rights granted to users who no longer maintain the platform.</li>
223 + <li>Groups created for old projects that still grant access.</li>
224 + <li>Page-level rights added as exceptions and never documented.</li>
225 + <li>Custom Velocity or Groovy code that is business-critical but undocumented.</li>
226 + <li>Extensions installed years ago without a clear owner or upgrade validation process.</li>
227 + <li>SSO configured correctly for login, but not reviewed together with XWiki groups.</li>
228 + <li>Backup jobs scheduled automatically, but restore expectations never tested.</li>
229 + <li>Production changes performed without a staging or rollback habit.</li>
230 + </ul>
231 +
232 + <h2 id="what-this-is-not">What this review is not</h2>
233 +
234 + <p>
235 + A security review is not a one-click scan and it is not limited to checking the installed XWiki version.
236 + Automated checks can help, but they cannot fully explain why a group has access, whether a custom script is still
237 + needed, or whether a restore procedure would actually work during an incident.
238 + </p>
239 +
240 + <p>
241 + The review should combine technical checks with context: how the wiki is used, which areas are sensitive, which
242 + users administer it, what customizations matter and what the organization expects during an incident or upgrade.
243 + </p>
244 +
187 187   <h2 id="security-checklist">XWiki security review checklist</h2>
188 188  
189 189   <p>
... ... @@ -207,8 +207,8 @@
207 207   <h2 id="review-output">What the review should produce</h2>
208 208  
209 209   <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.
268 + A useful security review should not only produce a list of detected problems. It should produce a practical
269 + action plan. Each finding should explain the risk, the affected area, the recommended action and the priority.
212 212   </p>
213 213  
214 214   <p>
... ... @@ -225,6 +225,33 @@
225 225   </p>
226 226   </div>
227 227  
286 + <h3>Example review finding</h3>
287 +
288 + <table class="table table-bordered table-striped">
289 + <thead>
290 + <tr>
291 + <th>Finding</th>
292 + <th>Risk</th>
293 + <th>Recommended action</th>
294 + <th>Priority</th>
295 + </tr>
296 + </thead>
297 + <tbody>
298 + <tr>
299 + <td>Several users have script rights but are no longer responsible for XWiki administration.</td>
300 + <td>Powerful rights remain active without clear ownership.</td>
301 + <td>Confirm the current need, remove obsolete assignments and document approved technical users.</td>
302 + <td>High</td>
303 + </tr>
304 + <tr>
305 + <td>Backups are scheduled, but the restore process has not been tested recently.</td>
306 + <td>Recovery expectations may be incorrect during an incident.</td>
307 + <td>Document backup coverage and perform a restore validation on a test environment.</td>
308 + <td>Medium</td>
309 + </tr>
310 + </tbody>
311 + </table>
312 +
228 228   <p>
229 229   The best outcome is a clearer, safer and more maintainable XWiki instance: one where administrators
230 230   understand the access model, critical features are documented and future upgrades can be planned with
... ... @@ -231,6 +231,24 @@
231 231   fewer surprises.
232 232   </p>
233 233  
319 + <h2 id="readiness-checklist">XWiki security review readiness checklist</h2>
320 +
321 + <p>
322 + Before starting a security review, prepare the following information. This makes the review faster and helps
323 + identify risks more clearly.
324 + </p>
325 +
326 + <ul class="resource-checklist">
327 + <li>Current XWiki version and target upgrade version, if an upgrade is planned.</li>
328 + <li>List of installed extensions and known custom applications.</li>
329 + <li>Authentication method: local users, LDAP, OIDC, SAML, SSO or MFA.</li>
330 + <li>Known restricted spaces, confidential areas or public-facing pages.</li>
331 + <li>List of technical administrators and users with powerful rights.</li>
332 + <li>Known custom scripts, templates, macros, UI extensions or Java components.</li>
333 + <li>Backup location, frequency and last restore test, if known.</li>
334 + <li>Staging or test environment availability.</li>
335 + </ul>
336 +
234 234   <h2 id="when-to-review">When should an XWiki security review be done?</h2>
235 235  
236 236   <p>