Many years ago, https://www.limesurvey.org was blocked by ops as it accepted sql injections. The service seems to have developed a lot recently, and it would help us to get back to using our limesurvey account (for free!) if the situation now is safer.
|Open||None||T96785 In-channel feedback with star rating / picklist (and on apps, simple text entry?) and backend de-spam|
|Resolved||Jhernandez||T104439 [GOAL]: Develop a mechanism for quick surveys on desktop + mobile|
|Declined||None||T109606 Re-evaluate Limesurvey|
I think @Moushira would be able to answer more clearly. But the goal here is; we want to have the option to use limesurvey because it is an open source survey software. We currently use Qualtrics and Google forms. Quick survey is being developed, but it only allows for 1 question and we will need complex skip patterns.
We've heard that Limesurvey was banned because of security issues, but the software seems to have changed in the last few years. Are you aware of any issues with using Limesurvey now? Can we use this service? (Do you know anyone who would know the history?) How can we get to use this service?
Thanks! Let me know if that is clearer. I'd be happy to expand on anything if further clarification is needed.
So the two uses (hosted ourselves vs hosted at another organization) have very different requirements.
If we're hosting this ourselves, then we need to do a security review of the codebase. It's almost 1M sloc's, which is honestly nearly impossible for me to schedule in right now (and it would take several week to do the review). And the very quick look I took at some samples were not encouraging. So I wouldn't recommend we go that route.
I asked around and no one remembers who got the old version removed. Maybe @tstarling?
Thanks @chasemp for pasting that - I missed that somehow in the previous conversation.
I want to keep this task open for now and in the backlog on the Surveys board assigned to me; I'd like to keep this on the backburner if/when we may have time to better integrate it into WMF work. We are using Qualtrics right now which is not open source and I know there is a keen interest inside and outside the WMF to move to open source if we are able to. Thanks!
Can someone clarify who should do the "due diligence that as an organization we're comfortable with how they would protect our users privacy and the controls they have in place to protect it"? Clearly a subtask needs to be written and assigned to this person, just so that it is super obvious what the next step is, regardless of when it can happen. Thanks.
Hi @Elitre ! That would be the security team, I just don't expect this is high on their priority or ours at this time, but it is definitely on my radar for the long-term. The security review might be just one part. I think we also need to think about managing the account and examining at how the software will work for our needs. @dpatrick - anything you can say from the security side? When might you have bandwidth to help with reviewing this software for Foundation use? Thanks!
If someone wants a security review from the Security-Team (=not a single person), please follow https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Security_Team/Security_reviews#Requesting_a_review by creating a dedicated subtask of this very task under the Security-Team-Reviews project. Thanks!
So to clarify - There is still interest in using lime survey, right (The third party site, not the software package)? And the question that you want answered, is what sort of security related language should be included in a potential contract with limesurvey.org ?
The interest is, AFAIK, in using a free tool vs a proprietary one, since security was given as a reason to adopt the latter, for which we're paying a license (which I understand also covers community's usage of the tool).
The use cases would be the same for which we're currently using Qualtrics, which powers most of the largest consultations we run as an org.
If it's decided that "we" (Wikimedia) actually want to use it, then a review should task should be created per the standard guidelines.
This task is kinda vague, suggesting it needs to be hosted on 3rd party servers, I don't think we're going to be doing that going forward.
Is it actually wanted? Has it been explored, deemed fit for purpose (in terms of works for our use cases etc)