X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/blobdiff_plain/fea2ec0926452ef3a8753791057bcabe8d212830..c4493533b6e1240eec474d541ed4053709ab1368:/doc/todo/Zoned_ikiwiki.mdwn?ds=inline diff --git a/doc/todo/Zoned_ikiwiki.mdwn b/doc/todo/Zoned_ikiwiki.mdwn index f8c80837c..bd71e8011 100644 --- a/doc/todo/Zoned_ikiwiki.mdwn +++ b/doc/todo/Zoned_ikiwiki.mdwn @@ -5,7 +5,38 @@ ## The idea The idea behind this would be to have one ikiwiki behave as a dynamic private wiki in a specified area -and a more static publiczone wiki. Actually private wiki page can be addressed via a *pagespec*. +and a more static publiczone wiki. + +## Use cases + +This can be more or less difficult depending on the use case. + +### Purely static public zone with a single, controlled-access inward zone + +For this case, only a known set of people are authorized to see the inward zone +or edit anything. Everybody else sees only the public zone. This use case is mostly +easy to handle now, as long as access to things like the `recentchanges` page and +repository browser are not granted for the public zone. In particular, the features +that allow information exposure via edit access are not of concern in this case. + +### Static public zone, more than one controlled inward zone + +In this case, the known, controlled set of people with special access are divided +into groups with access to different (or overlapping) zones. The public still sees only a static zone. + +Here, some of the harder issues, like information disclosure via edit access, do apply, +but only to members of the known, controlled groups. How much of a problem that is +depends on _how sensitive_ the information is that each group might reveal from another +zone. The rcs logs will show when a page has been edited to contain an [[ikiwiki/directive/inline]] +directive or other trick to reveal information, so if it is enough to treat the trusted users' conduct +as a management issue ("don't do that, please") then the risks can be acceptable in this case. + +### Public zone allows contribution/editing by external users + +This case is the most difficult to cover at present, and probably shouldn't be attempted +without solutions to most or all of the **obstacles** identified here. + +## Implementation techniques What is ready /can be done: @@ -129,6 +160,11 @@ The wrapper could probably import it and use its already-supplied routines to pa the request into the affected file names, and probably complete the whole request without a second `exec`. Other rcs backends might or might not be as easy. +### Search + +If [[plugins/search]] is enabled, private content is indexed and +searchable to the public. + ### Information leaks allowed by edit access > Have you considered all the ways that anyone with edit access to the