Skip to Content
Last modified by Agnease on 2026/06/08 18:44
From version 3.2
edited by Agnease
on 2026/06/02 11:02
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 1.6
edited by Agnease
on 2026/05/26 09:11
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -32,7 +32,6 @@
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>
34 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 36   </ul>
37 37   </aside>
38 38  
... ... @@ -52,21 +52,6 @@
52 52  
53 53   <div class="resource-note">
54 54   <p>
55 - <strong>In practice:</strong> an XWiki security review should evaluate the XWiki version,
56 - access rights, authentication setup, installed extensions, custom code, infrastructure,
57 - backups, restore expectations and the operational practices used to maintain the instance.
58 - </p>
59 - </div>
60 -
61 - <p>
62 - An XWiki security review is a structured assessment of the wiki platform, its configuration,
63 - access model, authentication mechanisms, extensions, customizations and operational setup.
64 - The goal is to identify risks, maintenance weaknesses and upgrade blockers before they affect
65 - users or business-critical content.
66 - </p>
67 -
68 - <div class="resource-note">
69 - <p>
70 70   <strong>The main point:</strong> an XWiki security review should not only check whether the application
71 71   is online. It should evaluate the platform, the access model and the operational practices around it.
72 72   </p>
... ... @@ -104,11 +104,6 @@
104 104   A repeatable upgrade process is part of the security posture of a long-running XWiki instance.
105 105   </p>
106 106  
107 - <p>
108 - For more details on upgrade planning, see
109 - <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.why-upgrade-xwiki')">why regular XWiki upgrades matter</a>.
110 - </p>
111 -
112 112   <h3>2. Access rights and permission model</h3>
113 113   <p>
114 114   XWiki has a powerful access-rights system, but this flexibility needs a clear governance model. A review
... ... @@ -122,10 +122,6 @@
122 122   of small exceptions that nobody reviewed later.
123 123   </p>
124 124  
125 - <p>
126 - For a deeper look at this topic, see <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-access-rights-governance')">why XWiki access rights need a clear governance model</a>.
127 - </p>
128 -
129 129   <h3>3. Authentication and identity management</h3>
130 130   <p>
131 131   Authentication should be reviewed beyond the simple question of whether users can log in. LDAP, Active
... ... @@ -150,11 +150,6 @@
150 150   discovered accidentally during an incident or a production upgrade.
151 151   </p>
152 152  
153 - <p>
154 - Customizations should also be reviewed from a maintenance perspective. See
155 - <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-custom-development')">how to keep XWiki custom development maintainable across upgrades</a>.
156 - </p>
157 -
158 158   <h3>5. Configuration, infrastructure and operations</h3>
159 159   <p>
160 160   The review should also cover the environment around XWiki: HTTPS and reverse proxy configuration, database
... ... @@ -167,22 +167,8 @@
167 167   knows what is included, how long recovery would take or whether the restore process has ever been tested.
168 168   </p>
169 169  
170 - <div class="resource-inline-cta">
171 - <p>
172 - <strong>Need a clearer view of your XWiki security posture?</strong>
173 - A structured review can check versions, access rights, authentication,
174 - extensions, custom code, infrastructure, backups and operational practices.
175 - </p>
176 - <a class="btn btn-secondary" href="$xwiki.getURL('contact.WebHome')">Request a security review</a>
177 - </div>
140 + <h2 id="security-checklist">Practical XWiki security review checklist</h2>
178 178  
179 - <h2 id="security-checklist">XWiki security review checklist</h2>
180 -
181 - <p>
182 - A practical XWiki security review should cover both application-level and operational risks.
183 - The following checklist can be used as a starting point when reviewing a production instance.
184 - </p>
185 -
186 186   <ul class="resource-checklist">
187 187   <li>Check the current XWiki version, target version and upgrade path.</li>
188 188   <li>Review installed extensions, outdated components and unsupported customizations.</li>
... ... @@ -209,14 +209,6 @@
209 209   reviewing extensions or preparing the next upgrade.
210 210   </p>
211 211  
212 - <div class="resource-note">
213 - <p>
214 - <strong>A useful review should separate findings by priority:</strong> immediate risks,
215 - planned remediation, maintenance improvements and documentation gaps. This makes the result
216 - easier to act on instead of producing a generic list of observations.
217 - </p>
218 - </div>
219 -
220 220   <p>
221 221   The best outcome is a clearer, safer and more maintainable XWiki instance: one where administrators
222 222   understand the access model, critical features are documented and future upgrades can be planned with
... ... @@ -236,42 +236,6 @@
236 236   permissions, extensions, customizations and recovery procedures were configured years earlier.
237 237   </p>
238 238  
239 - <h2 id="security-review-faq">XWiki security review FAQ</h2>
240 -
241 - <h3>What should an XWiki security review include?</h3>
242 - <p>
243 - An XWiki security review should include the installed XWiki version, upgrade path,
244 - access rights, groups, authentication setup, installed extensions, custom code,
245 - infrastructure, backups, restore expectations and operational procedures.
246 - </p>
247 -
248 - <h3>Is an updated XWiki instance automatically secure?</h3>
249 - <p>
250 - No. Updating XWiki is important, but security also depends on permissions,
251 - authentication, extensions, custom code, infrastructure configuration, backups
252 - and how the instance is maintained.
253 - </p>
254 -
255 - <h3>Does SSO solve XWiki access control?</h3>
256 - <p>
257 - No. SSO helps authenticate users, but access control still depends on XWiki groups,
258 - inherited permissions, page-level rights and administrative privileges.
259 - </p>
260 -
261 - <h3>Why should custom code be reviewed?</h3>
262 - <p>
263 - Custom scripts, templates, macros, UI extensions and Java components can affect
264 - permissions, workflows, rendering, integrations and upgrade behavior. They should
265 - be identified, documented and tested.
266 - </p>
267 -
268 - <h3>When should an XWiki security review be done?</h3>
269 - <p>
270 - A review is useful before a major upgrade, after years of organic growth, after
271 - authentication changes, before exposing the wiki more broadly, or when the instance
272 - becomes business-critical.
273 - </p>
274 -
275 275   <div class="resource-note">
276 276   <p>
277 277   Related resources:
... ... @@ -297,54 +297,5 @@
297 297   </div>
298 298   </section>
299 299  
300 - <script type="application/ld+json">
301 - {
302 - "@context": "https://schema.org",
303 - "@type": "FAQPage",
304 - "mainEntity": [
305 - {
306 - "@type": "Question",
307 - "name": "What should an XWiki security review include?",
308 - "acceptedAnswer": {
309 - "@type": "Answer",
310 - "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."
311 - }
312 - },
313 - {
314 - "@type": "Question",
315 - "name": "Is an updated XWiki instance automatically secure?",
316 - "acceptedAnswer": {
317 - "@type": "Answer",
318 - "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."
319 - }
320 - },
321 - {
322 - "@type": "Question",
323 - "name": "Does SSO solve XWiki access control?",
324 - "acceptedAnswer": {
325 - "@type": "Answer",
326 - "text": "No. SSO helps authenticate users, but access control still depends on XWiki groups, inherited permissions, page-level rights and administrative privileges."
327 - }
328 - },
329 - {
330 - "@type": "Question",
331 - "name": "Why should custom code be reviewed in XWiki?",
332 - "acceptedAnswer": {
333 - "@type": "Answer",
334 - "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."
335 - }
336 - },
337 - {
338 - "@type": "Question",
339 - "name": "When should an XWiki security review be done?",
340 - "acceptedAnswer": {
341 - "@type": "Answer",
342 - "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."
343 - }
344 - }
345 - ]
346 - }
347 - </script>
348 -
349 349  {{/html}}
350 350  {{/velocity}}
xwiki-security-review.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.Admin
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1.3 MB
Content