Skip to Content
Last modified by Agnease on 2026/05/26 15:27
From version 1.5
edited by Agnease
on 2026/05/26 07:48
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 2.1
edited by Agnease
on 2026/05/26 11:01
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
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>
35 35   </ul>
36 36   </aside>
37 37  
... ... @@ -51,6 +51,21 @@
51 51  
52 52   <div class="resource-note">
53 53   <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>
54 54   <strong>The main point:</strong> an XWiki security review should not only check whether the application
55 55   is online. It should evaluate the platform, the access model and the operational practices around it.
56 56   </p>
... ... @@ -88,6 +88,11 @@
88 88   A repeatable upgrade process is part of the security posture of a long-running XWiki instance.
89 89   </p>
90 90  
107 + <p>
108 + For more details on upgrade planning, see
109 + <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.why-upgrade-xwiki')">why regular XWiki upgrades matter</a>.
110 + </p>
111 +
91 91   <h3>2. Access rights and permission model</h3>
92 92   <p>
93 93   XWiki has a powerful access-rights system, but this flexibility needs a clear governance model. A review
... ... @@ -125,6 +125,11 @@
125 125   discovered accidentally during an incident or a production upgrade.
126 126   </p>
127 127  
149 + <p>
150 + Customizations should also be reviewed from a maintenance perspective. See
151 + <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-custom-development')">how to keep XWiki custom development maintainable across upgrades</a>.
152 + </p>
153 +
128 128   <h3>5. Configuration, infrastructure and operations</h3>
129 129   <p>
130 130   The review should also cover the environment around XWiki: HTTPS and reverse proxy configuration, database
... ... @@ -137,8 +137,22 @@
137 137   knows what is included, how long recovery would take or whether the restore process has ever been tested.
138 138   </p>
139 139  
140 - <h2 id="security-checklist">Practical XWiki security review checklist</h2>
166 + <div class="resource-inline-cta">
167 + <p>
168 + <strong>Need a clearer view of your XWiki security posture?</strong>
169 + A structured review can check versions, access rights, authentication,
170 + extensions, custom code, infrastructure, backups and operational practices.
171 + </p>
172 + <a class="btn btn-secondary" href="$xwiki.getURL('contact.WebHome')">Request a security review</a>
173 + </div>
141 141  
175 + <h2 id="security-checklist">XWiki security review checklist</h2>
176 +
177 + <p>
178 + A practical XWiki security review should cover both application-level and operational risks.
179 + The following checklist can be used as a starting point when reviewing a production instance.
180 + </p>
181 +
142 142   <ul class="resource-checklist">
143 143   <li>Check the current XWiki version, target version and upgrade path.</li>
144 144   <li>Review installed extensions, outdated components and unsupported customizations.</li>
... ... @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@
155 155   <h2 id="review-output">What the review should produce</h2>
156 156  
157 157   <p>
158 - A useful security review should not only produce a list of problems. It should produce a practical action
198 + A useful security review should not only produce a list of detected problems. It should produce a practical action
159 159   plan. Each finding should explain the risk, the affected area, the recommended action and the priority.
160 160   </p>
161 161  
... ... @@ -165,6 +165,14 @@
165 165   reviewing extensions or preparing the next upgrade.
166 166   </p>
167 167  
208 + <div class="resource-note">
209 + <p>
210 + <strong>A useful review should separate findings by priority:</strong> immediate risks,
211 + planned remediation, maintenance improvements and documentation gaps. This makes the result
212 + easier to act on instead of producing a generic list of observations.
213 + </p>
214 + </div>
215 +
168 168   <p>
169 169   The best outcome is a clearer, safer and more maintainable XWiki instance: one where administrators
170 170   understand the access model, critical features are documented and future upgrades can be planned with
... ... @@ -184,6 +184,42 @@
184 184   permissions, extensions, customizations and recovery procedures were configured years earlier.
185 185   </p>
186 186  
235 + <h2 id="security-review-faq">XWiki security review FAQ</h2>
236 +
237 + <h3>What should an XWiki security review include?</h3>
238 + <p>
239 + An XWiki security review should include the installed XWiki version, upgrade path,
240 + access rights, groups, authentication setup, installed extensions, custom code,
241 + infrastructure, backups, restore expectations and operational procedures.
242 + </p>
243 +
244 + <h3>Is an updated XWiki instance automatically secure?</h3>
245 + <p>
246 + No. Updating XWiki is important, but security also depends on permissions,
247 + authentication, extensions, custom code, infrastructure configuration, backups
248 + and how the instance is maintained.
249 + </p>
250 +
251 + <h3>Does SSO solve XWiki access control?</h3>
252 + <p>
253 + No. SSO helps authenticate users, but access control still depends on XWiki groups,
254 + inherited permissions, page-level rights and administrative privileges.
255 + </p>
256 +
257 + <h3>Why should custom code be reviewed?</h3>
258 + <p>
259 + Custom scripts, templates, macros, UI extensions and Java components can affect
260 + permissions, workflows, rendering, integrations and upgrade behavior. They should
261 + be identified, documented and tested.
262 + </p>
263 +
264 + <h3>When should an XWiki security review be done?</h3>
265 + <p>
266 + A review is useful before a major upgrade, after years of organic growth, after
267 + authentication changes, before exposing the wiki more broadly, or when the instance
268 + becomes business-critical.
269 + </p>
270 +
187 187   <div class="resource-note">
188 188   <p>
189 189   Related resources:
... ... @@ -209,5 +209,54 @@
209 209   </div>
210 210   </section>
211 211  
296 + <script type="application/ld+json">
297 + {
298 + "@context": "https://schema.org",
299 + "@type": "FAQPage",
300 + "mainEntity": [
301 + {
302 + "@type": "Question",
303 + "name": "What should an XWiki security review include?",
304 + "acceptedAnswer": {
305 + "@type": "Answer",
306 + "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."
307 + }
308 + },
309 + {
310 + "@type": "Question",
311 + "name": "Is an updated XWiki instance automatically secure?",
312 + "acceptedAnswer": {
313 + "@type": "Answer",
314 + "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."
315 + }
316 + },
317 + {
318 + "@type": "Question",
319 + "name": "Does SSO solve XWiki access control?",
320 + "acceptedAnswer": {
321 + "@type": "Answer",
322 + "text": "No. SSO helps authenticate users, but access control still depends on XWiki groups, inherited permissions, page-level rights and administrative privileges."
323 + }
324 + },
325 + {
326 + "@type": "Question",
327 + "name": "Why should custom code be reviewed in XWiki?",
328 + "acceptedAnswer": {
329 + "@type": "Answer",
330 + "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."
331 + }
332 + },
333 + {
334 + "@type": "Question",
335 + "name": "When should an XWiki security review be done?",
336 + "acceptedAnswer": {
337 + "@type": "Answer",
338 + "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."
339 + }
340 + }
341 + ]
342 + }
343 + </script>
344 +
212 212  {{/html}}
213 213  {{/velocity}}