On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:47 AM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 17 August 2010 17:54, Graham <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So I guess there isn't any possibility to have a group of users assigned
>> to a Namespace, and the other users status quo.
>> The owner of the wiki doesn't want another one to administer, so that's
>> why I am trying to be one hundred percent clear. The owner indicated
>> that the main Namespace being open isn't an issue. However, being able
>> to assign a few users to one Namespace, and having the remainder of
>> users functioning as usual is required.
>> Just want to be clear.
>
>
> There are extensions that let you do this sort of thing to some
> degree, but they're not part of the main MediaWiki code and are not
> likely to be.
>
> The trouble is that even if you restrict users to a namespace or from
> a namespace, evidence of the namespace will leak to public visibility
> - content, special pages, etc.
>
> The only way to properly secure MediaWiki on this level would be to
> put restricting code into every function of this rather large and
> complicated piece of software ...
>
> Here's a category of such extensions. I've never used any myself, but
> the devs have detailed the problems with such extensions:
>
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Page_specific_user_rights_extensions
>
> Speaking as an intranet system administrator, I'd never try to do this
> - if someone wants a secure wiki they get a separaste instance, if
> they want page-level security inside a single wiki then MediaWiki is
> likely not the right tool.
>
> - d.

The CIA generated code to add rigorous security classification levels
to MediaWiki would be useful to see; I tend to agree with David that
MediaWiki (even with available extensions) isn't a good tool for this
job.

I think that the code was kept private, though.

The problem with other Wiki software that's better at security is that
it's as a rule much more lousy Wiki software.

The Wikimedia Foundation per se doesn't have incentive or a goal to
rebuild MediaWiki as something in which real security is a design goal
right now.  Which is somewhat unfortunate, as some commercial and
organizational users could use that.  The CIA did, but we didn't get
the code.

I think that the world and industry as a whole are somewhat harmed by
the situation; adoption rate of intranet Wikis is somewhat slow in
many environments, because they're using more lousy Wiki platforms.


-- 
-george william herbert
[email protected]

_______________________________________________
MediaWiki-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Reply via email to