Talk:PHP-Nuke

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tiny MCE introduces security holes? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hitwalker 

message: 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)
replies: text: easynuke.org is currently unregistered and available.  Can we delete the above? Wlindley (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easynuke.org 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:PHPNukeWebsite.gif

message: the article lists this as GPL. the infobox lists it as proprietary. which is it? --Black Butterfly 15:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As well, of course, the copyright owner can at ANY POINT start producing new versions under non-GPL copyright license. Newer versions may very well be "proprietary" i.e. not released under the GPL copyright license. =//= Johnny Squeaky (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  License 

message: I propose merging Nukesentinel here.  The stub on its own lacks notability Nearly Human 11:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge_proposal 

message: While I'm cool with narrowing down the security bashing now that phpNuke is more stable, I think the current incarnation is a bit ambiguous. Currently it reads:
"PHP-Nuke has in the past been plagued by security holes. However, no security flaws have been reported in the last year."
That's it.
Let's expand this some. What notable security holes in the past? "no security flaws" is a very big statement for any piece of software. Anyone got a source for that or an appropriate time frame other than "last year"?
In light of my previous participation in the security controversy of phpNuke, my only edit is to ask for facts. I'd really like to see this article cleaned up. Even though my view of the software's security may be negative (from several experiences), I still see it as a slightly seminal step toward today's internet. Compare it's use several years ago to the penetration of WordPress among novices today. It also helped the penetration of PHP itself among novices in a small way. (Badmonkey skulks away ducking incoming flames for that WordPress remark :P) badmonkey (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Security (revisited)