Changes for page What an XWiki Security Review Should Actually Include

Last modified by Alex Cotiuga on 2026/07/13 06:44

Manage
- Copy
Actions
- Export
- Print Preview
Viewers
- Source
- Siblings
- Content
- Comments
- Attachments (1)
- History
- Information
- Likes

From version 1.1

edited by Alex Cotiuga
on 2026/05/26 07:41

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

To version 4.5

edited by Alex Cotiuga
on 2026/07/13 06:44

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Raw
Rendered

Summary

Page properties (4 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
Attachments (0 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
- xwiki-security-review.png
Objects (0 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
- Agnease.Code.SEODetailsClass[0]

Details

Page properties

Title

@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
--xwiki-security-review
++What an XWiki Security Review Should Actually Include

Default language

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-en

Hidden

@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
--false
++true

Content

@@ -1,0 +1,503 @@
++{{velocity}}
++#set ($discard = $xwiki.ssx.use('PublicWebSite.WebHome'))
++{{html clean="false"}}
++
++  <section class="resource-header" aria-labelledby="hero-title">
++    <div class="container">
++      <div class="text-center">
++        <div class="hero-kicker">
++          <i class="fa fa-shield" aria-hidden="true"></i>
++          XWiki security review
++        </div>
++      </div>
++
++      <h1 id="hero-title">What an XWiki security review should actually include</h1>
++
++      <p class="resource-summary">
++        A working XWiki instance is not automatically a secure one. A proper review should look at versions,
++        access rights, authentication, extensions, custom code, infrastructure and operational practices.
++      </p>
++    </div>
++  </section>
++
++  <section class="resource-page">
++    <div class="container">
++      <div class="resource-layout">
++
++        <aside class="resource-sidebar" aria-label="Page summary">
++          <h4>In this guide</h4>
++          <ul>
++            <li><a href="#why-it-matters">Why it matters</a></li>
++            <li><a href="#quick-self-check">Quick self-check</a></li>
++            <li><a href="#what-to-review">What to review</a></li>
++            <li><a href="#common-findings">Common findings</a></li>
++            <li><a href="#security-checklist">Security checklist</a></li>
++            <li><a href="#review-output">What the review should produce</a></li>
++            <li><a href="#readiness-checklist">What to prepare</a></li>
++            <li><a href="#when-to-review">When to run a review</a></li>
++            <li><a href="#security-review-faq">FAQ</a></li>
++          </ul>
++        </aside>
++
++        <article class="resource-content">
++
++          <p>
++            Many XWiki instances continue to work well from a user perspective while slowly accumulating security
++            and governance risks. Users can still log in, search, edit pages and access documents, but that does not
++            always mean the instance is properly secured or easy to maintain.
++          </p>
++
++          <p>
++            An XWiki security review is a practical audit of the platform configuration, access model,
++            authentication setup, installed extensions, custom code, infrastructure and recovery procedures.
++          </p>
++
++          <p>
++            Security risks are often hidden in less visible areas: outdated versions, inherited permissions,
++            forgotten administrator accounts, overly powerful rights, old extensions, undocumented scripts,
++            weak fallback access or backup assumptions that were never tested.
++          </p>
++
++          <div class="resource-note">
++            <p>
++              <strong>In practice:</strong> an XWiki security review should evaluate the XWiki version,
++              access rights, authentication setup, installed extensions, custom code, infrastructure,
++              backups, restore expectations and the operational practices used to maintain the instance.
++            </p>
++          </div>
++
++          <p>
++            The value of the review is not only to find technical issues. It is to understand how the instance is actually
++            used, where risk has accumulated over time, and what should be cleaned up before the next upgrade, migration,
++            authentication change or business-critical rollout.
++          </p>
++
++          <div class="resource-note">
++            <p>
++              <strong>The main point:</strong> an XWiki security review should not only check whether the application
++              is online. It should evaluate the platform, the access model and the operational practices around it.
++            </p>
++          </div>
++
++          <h2 id="why-it-matters">Why an XWiki security review matters</h2>
++
++          <p>
++            XWiki is often used as an internal knowledge base, intranet, documentation platform or controlled
++            document system. In these cases, the platform may contain sensitive procedures, internal decisions,
++            customer information, technical documentation, compliance records or business-critical workflows.
++          </p>
++
++          <p>
++            The more important the content becomes, the more important it is to understand who can access it, who can
++            change it, which customizations influence it and how safely the instance can be upgraded or restored.
++          </p>
++
++          <p>
++            In real XWiki instances, security problems are rarely caused by a single visible mistake. They often come from
++            years of small configuration decisions: one temporary group, one local right exception, one old extension, one
++            undocumented script, one backup procedure that nobody has tested recently.
++          </p>
++
++          <h2 id="quick-self-check">Quick self-check: does your XWiki need a security review?</h2>
++
++          <p>
++            Your XWiki instance may need a security review if one or more of these situations sound familiar.
++          </p>
++
++          <ul class="resource-checklist">
++            <li>You are not sure who currently has admin, script or programming rights.</li>
++            <li>The instance has not been upgraded regularly or the upgrade path is unclear.</li>
++            <li>SSO, LDAP, OIDC or SAML was configured years ago and not reviewed recently.</li>
++            <li>Custom scripts, templates, macros or extensions exist but are not clearly documented.</li>
++            <li>Groups and page-level rights have grown organically over several years.</li>
++            <li>Backups exist, but the restore process has not been tested or documented.</li>
++            <li>A new team inherited the instance and has to guess how rights, extensions or customizations were configured.</li>
++          </ul>
++
++          <div class="resource-note">
++            <p>
++              <strong>Practical signal:</strong> if the instance works but nobody can clearly explain the access model,
++              the customizations and the recovery process, the risk is not only technical. It is operational.
++            </p>
++          </div>
++
++          <h2 id="what-to-review">What should be reviewed</h2>
++
++          <h3>1. Version and upgrade status</h3>
++          <p>
++            The current XWiki version should be reviewed together with the target upgrade path, installed extensions
++            and infrastructure dependencies. An outdated instance is not only a maintenance concern. It can also mean
++            that security fixes, compatibility improvements and platform hardening are missing.
++          </p>
++
++          <p>
++            The review should also check whether upgrades are performed regularly or only when something breaks.
++            A repeatable upgrade process is part of the security posture of a long-running XWiki instance.
++          </p>
++
++          <p>
++            For more details on upgrade planning, see
++            <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.why-upgrade-xwiki')">why regular XWiki upgrades matter</a>.
++          </p>
++
++          <h3>2. Access rights and permission model</h3>
++          <p>
++            XWiki has a powerful access-rights system, but this flexibility needs a clear governance model. A review
++            should check who has administration rights, who has script or programming rights, whether rights are
++            assigned through groups, and whether page-level exceptions are still understandable.
++          </p>
++
++          <p>
++            It is also important to review inherited rights, public areas, restricted spaces, old groups, inactive
++            users and sensitive pages. Many permission problems do not come from one obvious mistake, but from years
++            of small exceptions that nobody reviewed later.
++          </p>
++
++          <p>
++            For a deeper look at this topic, see
++            <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-access-rights-governance')">why XWiki access rights need a clear governance model</a>.
++            For a practical starting point, see
++            <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-access-rights-review')">how to start an XWiki access-rights review</a>.
++          </p>
++
++          <h3>3. Authentication and identity management</h3>
++          <p>
++            Authentication should be reviewed beyond the simple question of whether users can log in. LDAP, Active
++            Directory, OIDC, SAML, SSO and MFA setups all need to be checked together with group synchronization,
++            fallback login options, local administrator accounts and recovery procedures.
++          </p>
++
++          <p>
++            SSO is useful, but it does not automatically guarantee a clean access model. Authentication confirms who
++            the user is. Authorization still depends on how XWiki groups and rights are configured.
++          </p>
++
++          <h3>4. Extensions and custom code</h3>
++          <p>
++            Installed extensions, custom applications, Velocity scripts, Groovy scripts, macros, sheets, templates,
++            UI extensions and Java components are all part of the security and maintenance surface of the instance.
++          </p>
++
++          <p>
++            A review should identify what is installed, what is customized, what is still used, what is documented and
++            what needs special validation during upgrades. Custom code should be tracked, explained and tested, not
++            discovered accidentally during an incident or a production upgrade.
++          </p>
++
++          <p>
++            Customizations should also be reviewed from a maintenance perspective. See
++            <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-custom-development')">how to keep XWiki custom development maintainable across upgrades</a>.
++          </p>
++
++          <h3>5. Configuration, infrastructure and operations</h3>
++          <p>
++            The review should also cover the environment around XWiki: HTTPS and reverse proxy configuration, database
++            access, filesystem and attachment storage, mail configuration, PDF export services, logs, monitoring,
++            server access and separation between production and staging.
++          </p>
++
++          <p>
++            Backups should be reviewed together with restore expectations. A backup strategy is incomplete if nobody
++            knows what is included, how long recovery would take or whether the restore process has ever been tested.
++          </p>
++
++          <div class="resource-inline-cta">
++            <p>
++              <strong>Need a clearer view of your XWiki security posture?</strong>
++              A structured review can check versions, access rights, authentication,
++              extensions, custom code, infrastructure, backups and operational practices.
++            </p>
++            <a class="btn btn-default" href="$xwiki.getURL('contact.WebHome')">Request a security review</a>
++            <a class="btn btn-secondary" href="$xwiki.getURL('pricing.WebHome')#common-packages">View review pricing</a>
++          </div>
++
++          <h2 id="common-findings">Common findings in real XWiki security reviews</h2>
++
++          <p>
++            In real XWiki instances, security risks are often not caused by one major mistake. They usually come from
++            configuration decisions that were reasonable at the time but were never reviewed together later.
++          </p>
++
++          <ul class="resource-checklist">
++            <li>Old administrator accounts that are still active.</li>
++            <li>Script or programming rights granted to users who no longer maintain the platform.</li>
++            <li>Groups created for old projects that still grant access.</li>
++            <li>Page-level rights added as exceptions and never documented.</li>
++            <li>Custom Velocity or Groovy code that is business-critical but undocumented.</li>
++            <li>Extensions installed years ago without a clear owner or upgrade validation process.</li>
++            <li>SSO configured correctly for login, but not reviewed together with XWiki groups.</li>
++            <li>Backup jobs scheduled automatically, but restore expectations never tested.</li>
++            <li>Production changes performed without a staging or rollback habit.</li>
++          </ul>
++
++          <h2 id="what-this-is-not">What this review is not</h2>
++
++          <p>
++            A security review is not a one-click scan and it is not limited to checking the installed XWiki version.
++            Automated checks can help, but they cannot fully explain why a group has access, whether a custom script is still
++            needed, or whether a restore procedure would actually work during an incident.
++          </p>
++
++          <p>
++            The review should combine technical checks with context: how the wiki is used, which areas are sensitive, which
++            users administer it, what customizations matter and what the organization expects during an incident or upgrade.
++          </p>
++
++          <h2 id="security-checklist">XWiki security review checklist</h2>
++
++          <p>
++            A practical XWiki security review should cover both application-level and operational risks.
++            The following checklist can be used as a starting point when reviewing a production instance.
++          </p>
++
++          <ul class="resource-checklist">
++            <li>Check the current XWiki version, target version and upgrade path.</li>
++            <li>Review installed extensions, outdated components and unsupported customizations.</li>
++            <li>Audit administrator, script and programming rights.</li>
++            <li>Review groups, inherited permissions and page-level exceptions.</li>
++            <li>Validate authentication, SSO, MFA, fallback access and administrator recovery options.</li>
++            <li>Identify custom scripts, templates, macros, UI extensions and Java components.</li>
++            <li>Review public, internal and restricted areas.</li>
++            <li>Check infrastructure, HTTPS, reverse proxy, database, filesystem and mail configuration.</li>
++            <li>Confirm backup coverage, restore expectations and rollback procedures.</li>
++            <li>Document findings and prioritize remediation actions.</li>
++          </ul>
++
++          <h2 id="review-output">What the review should produce</h2>
++
++          <p>
++            A useful security review should not only produce a list of detected problems. It should produce a practical
++            action plan. Each finding should explain the risk, the affected area, the recommended action and the priority.
++          </p>
++
++          <p>
++            Some findings may require immediate action, such as exposed administration rights or unsafe fallback
++            access. Others may become planned improvements, such as cleaning old groups, documenting custom code,
++            reviewing extensions or preparing the next upgrade.
++          </p>
++
++          <div class="resource-note">
++            <p>
++              <strong>A useful review should separate findings by priority:</strong> immediate risks,
++              planned remediation, maintenance improvements and documentation gaps. This makes the result
++              easier to act on instead of producing a generic list of observations.
++            </p>
++          </div>
++
++          <h3>Example review finding</h3>
++
++          <table class="table table-bordered table-striped">
++            <thead>
++              <tr>
++                <th>Finding</th>
++                <th>Risk</th>
++                <th>Recommended action</th>
++                <th>Priority</th>
++              </tr>
++            </thead>
++            <tbody>
++              <tr>
++                <td>Several users have script rights but are no longer responsible for XWiki administration.</td>
++                <td>Powerful rights remain active without clear ownership.</td>
++                <td>Confirm the current need, remove obsolete assignments and document approved technical users.</td>
++                <td>High</td>
++              </tr>
++              <tr>
++                <td>Backups are scheduled, but the restore process has not been tested recently.</td>
++                <td>Recovery expectations may be incorrect during an incident.</td>
++                <td>Document backup coverage and perform a restore validation on a test environment.</td>
++                <td>Medium</td>
++              </tr>
++            </tbody>
++          </table>
++
++          <p>
++            The best outcome is a clearer, safer and more maintainable XWiki instance: one where administrators
++            understand the access model, critical features are documented and future upgrades can be planned with
++            fewer surprises.
++          </p>
++
++          <h2 id="readiness-checklist">XWiki security review readiness checklist</h2>
++
++          <p>
++            Before starting a security review, prepare the following information. This makes the review faster and helps
++            identify risks more clearly.
++          </p>
++
++          <ul class="resource-checklist">
++            <li>Current XWiki version and target upgrade version, if an upgrade is planned.</li>
++            <li>List of installed extensions and known custom applications.</li>
++            <li>Authentication method: local users, LDAP, OIDC, SAML, SSO or MFA.</li>
++            <li>Known restricted spaces, confidential areas or public-facing pages.</li>
++            <li>List of technical administrators and users with powerful rights.</li>
++            <li>Known custom scripts, templates, macros, UI extensions or Java components.</li>
++            <li>Backup location, frequency and last restore test, if known.</li>
++            <li>Staging or test environment availability.</li>
++          </ul>
++
++          <h2 id="when-to-review">When should an XWiki security review be done?</h2>
++
++          <p>
++            A review is especially useful before a major upgrade, after years of organic growth, after an authentication
++            change, before exposing the instance more broadly, after a migration, or when the wiki becomes more
++            business-critical than it was when first installed.
++          </p>
++
++          <p>
++            It is also useful when administration responsibilities change. A new team should not have to guess how
++            permissions, extensions, customizations and recovery procedures were configured years earlier.
++          </p>
++
++          <div class="resource-note related-resources">
++            <p><strong>Security review series:</strong></p>
++            <ul>
++              <li>
++                <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-security-review')">What an XWiki security review should actually include</a>
++              </li>
++              <li>
++                <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-access-rights-governance')">Why XWiki access rights need a clear governance model</a>
++              </li>
++              <li>
++                <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-access-rights-review')">How to start an XWiki access-rights review</a>
++              </li>
++            </ul>
++            <p>
++              Future topics will cover authentication and access control, script and programming rights,
++              backup validation, extension review and operational practices.
++            </p>
++          </div>
++
++          <h2 id="security-review-faq">XWiki security review FAQ</h2>
++
++          <details class="resource-faq-item" open>
++            <summary>What should an XWiki security review include?</summary>
++            <p>
++              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.
++            </p>
++          </details>
++
++          <details class="resource-faq-item">
++            <summary>Is an updated XWiki instance automatically secure?</summary>
++            <p>
++              No. Updating XWiki is important, but security also depends on permissions,
++              authentication, extensions, custom code, infrastructure configuration, backups
++              and how the instance is maintained.
++            </p>
++          </details>
++
++          <details class="resource-faq-item">
++            <summary>Does SSO solve XWiki access control?</summary>
++            <p>
++              No. SSO helps authenticate users, but access control still depends on XWiki groups,
++              inherited permissions, page-level rights and administrative privileges.
++            </p>
++          </details>
++
++          <details class="resource-faq-item">
++            <summary>Why should custom code be reviewed?</summary>
++            <p>
++              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.
++            </p>
++          </details>
++
++          <details class="resource-faq-item">
++            <summary>When should an XWiki security review be done?</summary>
++            <p>
++              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.
++            </p>
++          </details>
++
++          <div class="resource-note related-resources">
++            <p><strong>Related resources:</strong></p>
++            <ul>
++              <li>
++                <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-access-rights-governance')">Why XWiki access rights need a clear governance model</a>
++              </li>
++              <li>
++                <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-access-rights-review')">How to start an XWiki access-rights review</a>
++              </li>
++              <li>
++                <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.why-upgrade-xwiki')">Why regular XWiki upgrades matter</a>
++              </li>
++              <li>
++                <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-custom-development')">How to keep XWiki custom development maintainable across upgrades</a>
++              </li>
++            </ul>
++          </div>
++        </article>
++
++      </div>
++    </div>
++  </section>
++
++  <section class="cta-section" aria-labelledby="xwiki-security-review-cta-title">
++    <div class="container">
++      <div class="cta-panel">
++        <h2 id="xwiki-security-review-cta-title">Need an XWiki security review?</h2>
++        <p>
++          If your XWiki instance has grown over time, contains sensitive content, uses custom code or depends on
++          SSO, extensions and business-critical workflows, a structured review can help identify risks and define
++          the safest next steps.
++        </p>
++        <a class="btn btn-primary" href="$xwiki.getURL('contact.WebHome')">Request a security review</a>
++      </div>
++    </div>
++  </section>
++
++  <script type="application/ld+json">
++  {
++    "@context": "https://schema.org",
++    "@type": "FAQPage",
++    "mainEntity": [
++      {
++        "@type": "Question",
++        "name": "What should an XWiki security review include?",
++        "acceptedAnswer": {
++          "@type": "Answer",
++          "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."
++        }
++      },
++      {
++        "@type": "Question",
++        "name": "Is an updated XWiki instance automatically secure?",
++        "acceptedAnswer": {
++          "@type": "Answer",
++          "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."
++        }
++      },
++      {
++        "@type": "Question",
++        "name": "Does SSO solve XWiki access control?",
++        "acceptedAnswer": {
++          "@type": "Answer",
++          "text": "No. SSO helps authenticate users, but access control still depends on XWiki groups, inherited permissions, page-level rights and administrative privileges."
++        }
++      },
++      {
++        "@type": "Question",
++        "name": "Why should custom code be reviewed in XWiki?",
++        "acceptedAnswer": {
++          "@type": "Answer",
++          "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."
++        }
++      },
++      {
++        "@type": "Question",
++        "name": "When should an XWiki security review be done?",
++        "acceptedAnswer": {
++          "@type": "Answer",
++          "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."
++        }
++      }
++    ]
++  }
++  </script>
++
++{{/html}}
++{{/velocity}}

xwiki-security-review.png

Author

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+XWiki.Admin

Size

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1.3 MB

Content

Agnease.Code.SEODetailsClass[0]

metaDescription

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Learn what an XWiki security review should include: version status, access rights, authentication, extensions, custom code, infrastructure, backups and operational practices.

metaTitle

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+What an XWiki Security Review Should Actually Include \| Agnease