Talk:PHP-Nuke: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:23, 26 June 2007

(Previous talk page deleted, see history) JamesHoadley 10:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny MCE introduces security holes?

This is news to me. Firstly, PHP-Nuke non-patched has holes that a truck could drive through. Secondly, what about Chatserve's patch series? I've got it, and used it up to 7.6, and it seems to close all SQL injection holes. Does TinyMCE introduce new issues, like XSS? JamesHoadley 10:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this article and you'll understand why. Put it simply, with introduction of TinyMCE, input content will not be filtered at all. Think about inserting javascript into content and have it pass through in vanilla form... 221.127.100.196 09:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitwalker

This has been going on for sometime. I would like to know if anyone thinks hitwalker is a notable site for the PHP-Nuke community. It has been added and removed many times. If you don't think it should be listed please say why. -- murder1 04:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it's pointless to have two PHP-Nuke resource sites that are almost identical with what files they offer. PHPNukeFile is a more reputable source, well respected by the community, and has been around longer. Also, I would like to point out WP:NOT. — stephen 17:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As i was pointed to this old article i would like to explain a few things.Phpnukefiles doesnt excist longer then Phpnuke database.Also the Phpnukefiles website is not well maintained and not uptodate.So in my believes you should not publish or write about something you dont know much off,and specially if its done by a 16 year old,that doesnt realy qualify as having the proper knowledge.At Phpnuke database quality is more important the quantity.

Easynuke.org

I was wondering, would it be beneficial to have a link to a free PHP-Nuke site? PHP-Nuke was released as a multi-version recently, and hence my business partner decided to take it up, adding to his free phpbb and invision forum host. Although it is not released yet, it is ready, and the website is: easynuke.org I posted this here now, incase anybody had any problems with me editing the main page when easynuke is actually released. It would be beneficial for those seeking a free, easily set up (litirally a few clicks, no messing with servers) PHP-Nuke setup. PAz 13:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Alex[reply]

Lack of security

Hey, I'd like to know more about the supposed lack of security in PHPNuke.

The article currently claims "Because PHP-Nuke is so widely known, it is a frequently attacked target of those looking for security flaws." Umm, rubbish, this argument has been refuted many times in case of many other programs. For example, Windows isn't insecure because a lot of people use it and thus hack it, it's because it's not designed with security in mind at all. And that's exactly what I heard about PHPNuke: Sloppy coding practices and no security consciousness among the developers.

Sloppy coding is highly subjective. No security consciousness is speculative at best. And Windows has been coded with security in mind since NT - check out Microsoft Windows#Security. And despite what you think, people do target visible softwares simply because they are visible. It's the same reason the September 11th hijackers attacked the World Trade Center and not the lone Exxon Mobile gas station in Any Town, USA. 216.40.225.203 09:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, even when that particular sentence has to go, I can't go claiming the abovementioned things in the article right off without sources - just hearsay and lots of people saying "PHPNuke sucks". Does anyone know any real published researched critique of PHP-Nuke? I think it's pretty easy to find security advisories and stuff like that though. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone removed this: 18:20, 17 January 2006 Drmike (→Lack of security - Removed Trolling) Let's ignore that. My intention was not to troll or anything - I'm looking for constructive, sourced criticism of the project whose security and efficiency has been doubted a lot. PHP-Nuke has faced some severe allegiations along these lines. I just think these facts are not covered to necessary extent in the article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Windows#Security discusses the security issues in a chronological fashion. This helps to distinguish between issues that, today, merit concern, and issues that are little more than historical footnotes. This article, in contrast, just blurrs them all together. And doesn't provide any citations what-so-ever. Also, look at Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. ~~

I added some citations. I think the weasel-ish sentence at the begining of the Lack of security and criticism section is factual, however I can't provide good citations - most are forum postings. I have had a server compromised via Nuke, have patched many a system and today just admonish clients for using it and refuse to work with them unless they find another CMS. I actually keep it on a server with a locked database to learn how not to code PHP by analyzing the log files for exploits. I was tempted to remove the weasel tag completely, but think that the sentence can be simply re-structured somehow by someone with more lingual skill than I. I almost cited it with this Google search. Finding a proper citation for something that has become common knowledge in a field is harder than I thought. badmonkey 02:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

89,500,000 hits for avoid google, 34,300,000 hits for avoid wikipedia, and 532,000 for php-nuke? maybe google and mediawiki should take a deep look at php-nuke's source code to figure out what they do to get so few hits.

also, if you can't find proper citations then maybe you simply aren't familiar enough with the issues surrounding php-nuke to make useful contributions. lots of people think that israel's overly aggressive expansionist policies are wrong, but you don't see the article on israel saying "israel has been criticized in the past for it's confrontationalism" do you? and if it doesn't belong there, then why do you think it should belong here?

finally, no one cares about your own personal experiences. personal experiences aren't citable and they shouldn't be brought up, here. if you think otherwise, then consider that i've never been hacked by php-nuke and the only people i've ever seen that have been were people who just didn't know how to upgrade. if you think that php-nuke is the only cms that has upgrades to fix security issues, you're wrong. look at joomla!. every release this year has fixed security vulnerabilities. so what do you think is going to happen if you don't do one of those upgrades? you're going to get hacked. just as you'll get hacked if you don't update php-nuke. 216.32.81.2 02:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the joomla changelogs, for your perusal: http://www.joomla.org/content/category/5/34/78/ 216.32.81.2 02:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

http://www.hitwalker.nl recently changed to Phpnuke Database- Phpnuke Database , as in http://www.phpnuke-database.com

The hitwalker sites are available for the whole world to see , visitors who get 403 forbidden are with their ip in a spam or hacking ip range that has been blocked.

--Hitwalker 14:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

maru (talk) contribs 04:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

This article should have a history section. Personally, I came to find what it was first created.

Fair use rationale for Image:PHPNukeWebsite.gif

Image:PHPNukeWebsite.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the point in adding any info here or joining this whatever discussion if its all deleted again. The whole phpnuke article at wikipedia is becoming one big joke as its content is constantly censored.(owner of phpnuke-database.com 10:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->[[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] 05:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
+----
 Whats the point in adding any info here or joining this whatever discussion if its all deleted again.