Hi Yury,

I, too, would be interested to hear what other people have to say. I'll just point out that issue 2 that you raise is actually an argument for keeping 1 and 3 as they are. Because SF's page parsing is not perfect, there's a strong argument to always allowing users to edit the wikitext directly if things go wrong.


On Oct 31, 2012 10:07 AM, "Yury Katkov" <katkov.juriy@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Yaron!

I want to also listen the comments from the community. Currently in Forms:
1) it's impossible to require the editing only with the forms and not
with "action=edit" or with MW API
2) the values entered in forms like "}}", "|-" etc can broke the templates
3) there is no validation of the required values

So now SF is an extension that create forms to ADVICE users what has
to be in the article and not REQUIRE them to follow the form.
That's possible approach, however strange it may be seemed for the
enterprise uses.

I think that many wikis want Forms to be something strict and provide
some guarantees. Here the argument "it's a wiki" is not sufficient:
some wikis prefer not to show the markup to the users at all. These
malicious edits are hard to recognize and very hard to alter if you
use only Forms' features.

I think that the additional configuration settings will be a good compromise:
- $wgSFAllowOnlyFormEdit - to disable "action=edit"
- $wgSFValidatePossibleValues - to turn on the validation of
possible values, mandatory fields etc
- something with escaping (a bit complicated subject)

Yury Katkov, WikiVote

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Yaron Koren <yaron@wikiworks.com> wrote:
> Hi Yury,
> Yes, it's true that malicious (or inquisitive) users can turn off all of
> SF's validation. SF's main validation is Javascript-based, and as far as I
> know that one can be shut off by users just as easily as the HTML changes
> you mentioned. I've made no effort to try to make SF more secure in that
> regard, for two related reasons:
> - unless there's some custom coding done, users will always be able to go to
> "action=edit" and modify the page directly, however they want.
> - more generally, it's a wiki: the default approach is to let everyone edit
> any page however they want. When malicious edits are made, they're easy to
> spot and revert, and the user who made the edit can then be blocked.
> And there's a third reason, which is that these kinds of "clever" malicious
> edits are, from my experience, extremely rare: vandalism tends to be done by
> users who are idiots and/or spammers.
> Any thoughts on that?
> -Yaron
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Yury Katkov <katkov.juriy@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi Yaron and everyone!
>> We experimented a bit with Semantic Forms and found that the forms do
>> not validate the correctness of the values for 'values from category'.
>> Here is an example: I define a form with the field
>> {{field|nameofthefield|values from category=Mycategory|input
>> type=dropdown}}
>> My intuition is that it's impossible to enter the value that is not
>> listed in a dropdown, so I want to rely on some validation mechanism
>> of SF.
>> It's not so, unfortunately.
>> Using Firebug or Chrome Developer (see [1]) I can alter any <option>
>> in a dropdown and send the data that is not allowed (see [2]).
>> Yaron, is the enhanced secuirity and validation of Forms currently in
>> the roadmap? IMHO it's a serious issue for those who use semantic
>> forms to really restrict the editing of the pages.
>> [1] http://i.imm.io/Jdm3.png
>> [2] http://i.imgur.com/WkPpG.png
>> -----
>> Yury Katkov, WikiVote
> --
> WikiWorks MediaWiki Consulting http://wikiworks.com