Skip to Content
Last modified by Agnease on 2026/05/26 15:27
From version 1.8
edited by Agnease
on 2026/05/26 09:29
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 1.4
edited by Agnease
on 2026/05/26 07:47
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="$xwiki.getURL('resources.why-upgrade-xwiki')">why regular XWiki upgrades matter</a>.
110 - </p>
111 -
112 112   <h3>2. Access rights and permission model</h3>
113 113   <p>
114 114   XWiki has a powerful access-rights system, but this flexibility needs a clear governance model. A review
... ... @@ -146,11 +146,6 @@
146 146   discovered accidentally during an incident or a production upgrade.
147 147   </p>
148 148  
149 - <p>
150 - Customizations should also be reviewed from a maintenance perspective. See
151 - <a href="$xwiki.getURL('resources.xwiki-custom-development')">how to keep XWiki custom development maintainable across upgrades</a>.
152 - </p>
153 -
154 154   <h3>5. Configuration, infrastructure and operations</h3>
155 155   <p>
156 156   The review should also cover the environment around XWiki: HTTPS and reverse proxy configuration, database
... ... @@ -163,13 +163,8 @@
163 163   knows what is included, how long recovery would take or whether the restore process has ever been tested.
164 164   </p>
165 165  
166 - <h2 id="security-checklist">XWiki security review checklist</h2>
140 + <h2 id="security-checklist">Practical XWiki security review checklist</h2>
167 167  
168 - <p>
169 - A practical XWiki security review should cover both application-level and operational risks.
170 - The following checklist can be used as a starting point when reviewing a production instance.
171 - </p>
172 -
173 173   <ul class="resource-checklist">
174 174   <li>Check the current XWiki version, target version and upgrade path.</li>
175 175   <li>Review installed extensions, outdated components and unsupported customizations.</li>
... ... @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@
186 186   <h2 id="review-output">What the review should produce</h2>
187 187  
188 188   <p>
189 - A useful security review should not only produce a list of detected problems. It should produce a practical action
158 + A useful security review should not only produce a list of problems. It should produce a practical action
190 190   plan. Each finding should explain the risk, the affected area, the recommended action and the priority.
191 191   </p>
192 192  
... ... @@ -196,14 +196,6 @@
196 196   reviewing extensions or preparing the next upgrade.
197 197   </p>
198 198  
199 - <div class="resource-note">
200 - <p>
201 - <strong>A useful review should separate findings by priority:</strong> immediate risks,
202 - planned remediation, maintenance improvements and documentation gaps. This makes the result
203 - easier to act on instead of producing a generic list of observations.
204 - </p>
205 - </div>
206 -
207 207   <p>
208 208   The best outcome is a clearer, safer and more maintainable XWiki instance: one where administrators
209 209   understand the access model, critical features are documented and future upgrades can be planned with
... ... @@ -223,42 +223,6 @@
223 223   permissions, extensions, customizations and recovery procedures were configured years earlier.
224 224   </p>
225 225  
226 - <h2 id="security-review-faq">XWiki security review FAQ</h2>
227 -
228 - <h3>What should an XWiki security review include?</h3>
229 - <p>
230 - An XWiki security review should include the installed XWiki version, upgrade path,
231 - access rights, groups, authentication setup, installed extensions, custom code,
232 - infrastructure, backups, restore expectations and operational procedures.
233 - </p>
234 -
235 - <h3>Is an updated XWiki instance automatically secure?</h3>
236 - <p>
237 - No. Updating XWiki is important, but security also depends on permissions,
238 - authentication, extensions, custom code, infrastructure configuration, backups
239 - and how the instance is maintained.
240 - </p>
241 -
242 - <h3>Does SSO solve XWiki access control?</h3>
243 - <p>
244 - No. SSO helps authenticate users, but access control still depends on XWiki groups,
245 - inherited permissions, page-level rights and administrative privileges.
246 - </p>
247 -
248 - <h3>Why should custom code be reviewed?</h3>
249 - <p>
250 - Custom scripts, templates, macros, UI extensions and Java components can affect
251 - permissions, workflows, rendering, integrations and upgrade behavior. They should
252 - be identified, documented and tested.
253 - </p>
254 -
255 - <h3>When should an XWiki security review be done?</h3>
256 - <p>
257 - A review is useful before a major upgrade, after years of organic growth, after
258 - authentication changes, before exposing the wiki more broadly, or when the instance
259 - becomes business-critical.
260 - </p>
261 -
262 262   <div class="resource-note">
263 263   <p>
264 264   Related resources:
... ... @@ -284,54 +284,5 @@
284 284   </div>
285 285   </section>
286 286  
287 - <script type="application/ld+json">
288 - {
289 - "@context": "https://schema.org",
290 - "@type": "FAQPage",
291 - "mainEntity": [
292 - {
293 - "@type": "Question",
294 - "name": "What should an XWiki security review include?",
295 - "acceptedAnswer": {
296 - "@type": "Answer",
297 - "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."
298 - }
299 - },
300 - {
301 - "@type": "Question",
302 - "name": "Is an updated XWiki instance automatically secure?",
303 - "acceptedAnswer": {
304 - "@type": "Answer",
305 - "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."
306 - }
307 - },
308 - {
309 - "@type": "Question",
310 - "name": "Does SSO solve XWiki access control?",
311 - "acceptedAnswer": {
312 - "@type": "Answer",
313 - "text": "No. SSO helps authenticate users, but access control still depends on XWiki groups, inherited permissions, page-level rights and administrative privileges."
314 - }
315 - },
316 - {
317 - "@type": "Question",
318 - "name": "Why should custom code be reviewed in XWiki?",
319 - "acceptedAnswer": {
320 - "@type": "Answer",
321 - "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."
322 - }
323 - },
324 - {
325 - "@type": "Question",
326 - "name": "When should an XWiki security review be done?",
327 - "acceptedAnswer": {
328 - "@type": "Answer",
329 - "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."
330 - }
331 - }
332 - ]
333 - }
334 - </script>
335 -
336 336  {{/html}}
337 337  {{/velocity}}
Agnease.Code.SEODetailsClass[0]
metaTitle
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -What an XWiki Security Review Should Actually Include | Agnease
1 +XWiki Security Review Checklist: What to Check and Why