Skip to Content
Version 3.2 by Agnease on 2026/06/02 11:02
Show last authors
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48 Security risks are often hidden in less visible areas: outdated versions, inherited permissions,
49 forgotten administrator accounts, overly powerful rights, old extensions, undocumented scripts,
50 weak fallback access or backup assumptions that were never tested.
51 </p>
52
53 <div class="resource-note">
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 <strong>The main point:</strong> an XWiki security review should not only check whether the application
71 is online. It should evaluate the platform, the access model and the operational practices around it.
72 </p>
73 </div>
74
75 <h2 id="why-it-matters">Why an XWiki security review matters</h2>
76
77 <p>
78 XWiki is often used as an internal knowledge base, intranet, documentation platform or controlled
79 document system. In these cases, the platform may contain sensitive procedures, internal decisions,
80 customer information, technical documentation, compliance records or business-critical workflows.
81 </p>
82
83 <p>
84 The more important the content becomes, the more important it is to understand who can access it, who can
85 change it, which customizations influence it and how safely the instance can be upgraded or restored.
86 </p>
87
88 <p>
89 A security review helps identify risks before they become incidents, upgrade blockers or maintenance
90 surprises. It also gives administrators a clearer view of the current state of the instance.
91 </p>
92
93 <h2 id="what-to-review">What should be reviewed</h2>
94
95 <h3>1. Version and upgrade status</h3>
96 <p>
97 The current XWiki version should be reviewed together with the target upgrade path, installed extensions
98 and infrastructure dependencies. An outdated instance is not only a maintenance concern. It can also mean
99 that security fixes, compatibility improvements and platform hardening are missing.
100 </p>
101
102 <p>
103 The review should also check whether upgrades are performed regularly or only when something breaks.
104 A repeatable upgrade process is part of the security posture of a long-running XWiki instance.
105 </p>
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 <h3>2. Access rights and permission model</h3>
113 <p>
114 XWiki has a powerful access-rights system, but this flexibility needs a clear governance model. A review
115 should check who has administration rights, who has script or programming rights, whether rights are
116 assigned through groups, and whether page-level exceptions are still understandable.
117 </p>
118
119 <p>
120 It is also important to review inherited rights, public areas, restricted spaces, old groups, inactive
121 users and sensitive pages. Many permission problems do not come from one obvious mistake, but from years
122 of small exceptions that nobody reviewed later.
123 </p>
124
125 <p>
126 For a deeper look at this topic, see <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-access-rights-governance')">why XWiki access rights need a clear governance model</a>.
127 </p>
128
129 <h3>3. Authentication and identity management</h3>
130 <p>
131 Authentication should be reviewed beyond the simple question of whether users can log in. LDAP, Active
132 Directory, OIDC, SAML, SSO and MFA setups all need to be checked together with group synchronization,
133 fallback login options, local administrator accounts and recovery procedures.
134 </p>
135
136 <p>
137 SSO is useful, but it does not automatically guarantee a clean access model. Authentication confirms who
138 the user is. Authorization still depends on how XWiki groups and rights are configured.
139 </p>
140
141 <h3>4. Extensions and custom code</h3>
142 <p>
143 Installed extensions, custom applications, Velocity scripts, Groovy scripts, macros, sheets, templates,
144 UI extensions and Java components are all part of the security and maintenance surface of the instance.
145 </p>
146
147 <p>
148 A review should identify what is installed, what is customized, what is still used, what is documented and
149 what needs special validation during upgrades. Custom code should be tracked, explained and tested, not
150 discovered accidentally during an incident or a production upgrade.
151 </p>
152
153 <p>
154 Customizations should also be reviewed from a maintenance perspective. See
155 <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-custom-development')">how to keep XWiki custom development maintainable across upgrades</a>.
156 </p>
157
158 <h3>5. Configuration, infrastructure and operations</h3>
159 <p>
160 The review should also cover the environment around XWiki: HTTPS and reverse proxy configuration, database
161 access, filesystem and attachment storage, mail configuration, PDF export services, logs, monitoring,
162 server access and separation between production and staging.
163 </p>
164
165 <p>
166 Backups should be reviewed together with restore expectations. A backup strategy is incomplete if nobody
167 knows what is included, how long recovery would take or whether the restore process has ever been tested.
168 </p>
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>
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 <ul class="resource-checklist">
187 <li>Check the current XWiki version, target version and upgrade path.</li>
188 <li>Review installed extensions, outdated components and unsupported customizations.</li>
189 <li>Audit administrator, script and programming rights.</li>
190 <li>Review groups, inherited permissions and page-level exceptions.</li>
191 <li>Validate authentication, SSO, MFA, fallback access and administrator recovery options.</li>
192 <li>Identify custom scripts, templates, macros, UI extensions and Java components.</li>
193 <li>Review public, internal and restricted areas.</li>
194 <li>Check infrastructure, HTTPS, reverse proxy, database, filesystem and mail configuration.</li>
195 <li>Confirm backup coverage, restore expectations and rollback procedures.</li>
196 <li>Document findings and prioritize remediation actions.</li>
197 </ul>
198
199 <h2 id="review-output">What the review should produce</h2>
200
201 <p>
202 A useful security review should not only produce a list of detected problems. It should produce a practical action
203 plan. Each finding should explain the risk, the affected area, the recommended action and the priority.
204 </p>
205
206 <p>
207 Some findings may require immediate action, such as exposed administration rights or unsafe fallback
208 access. Others may become planned improvements, such as cleaning old groups, documenting custom code,
209 reviewing extensions or preparing the next upgrade.
210 </p>
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 <p>
221 The best outcome is a clearer, safer and more maintainable XWiki instance: one where administrators
222 understand the access model, critical features are documented and future upgrades can be planned with
223 fewer surprises.
224 </p>
225
226 <h2 id="when-to-review">When should an XWiki security review be done?</h2>
227
228 <p>
229 A review is especially useful before a major upgrade, after years of organic growth, after an authentication
230 change, before exposing the instance more broadly, after a migration, or when the wiki becomes more
231 business-critical than it was when first installed.
232 </p>
233
234 <p>
235 It is also useful when administration responsibilities change. A new team should not have to guess how
236 permissions, extensions, customizations and recovery procedures were configured years earlier.
237 </p>
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 <div class="resource-note">
276 <p>
277 Related resources:
278 <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.why-upgrade-xwiki')">why regular XWiki upgrades matter</a>
279 and
280 <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-custom-development')">how to keep XWiki custom development maintainable across upgrades</a>.
281 </p>
282 </div>
283
284 <div class="resource-cta">
285 <h3>Need an XWiki security review?</h3>
286 <p>
287 If your XWiki instance has grown over time, contains sensitive content, uses custom code or depends on
288 SSO, extensions and business-critical workflows, a structured review can help identify risks and define
289 the safest next steps.
290 </p>
291 <a class="btn btn-primary" href="$xwiki.getURL('contact.WebHome')">Request a security review</a>
292 </div>
293
294 </article>
295
296 </div>
297 </div>
298 </section>
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 {{/html}}
350 {{/velocity}}