Jump to content


CMS @ Wappalyzer

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 vikingkarwur



  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • 1

  • LocationJakarta, Indonesia

Posted 11 January 2012 - 09:17 PM


I usually using wappalyzer (firefox add-on : https://addons.mozil...don/wappalyzer/) to check everything "behind" (especially CMS) the website.

FYI. Wappalyzer is a browser extension that uncovers the technologies used on websites.

I'm Wondering, is there ProcessWire CMS can be identify with Wappalyzer right now ?

Iā™„JESUS / Freelance Web Designer based in Jakarta, Indonesia / Mozillian / Sunday School Teacher / I'm @vikingkarwur on twitter

#2 MarcC


    Sr. Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 315 posts
  • 107

  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 11 January 2012 - 10:41 PM

I'm Wondering, is there ProcessWire CMS can be identify with Wappalyzer right now ?

I think that would be very difficult, because ProcessWire can be used as a framework only. You can even easily change the default control panel URL and have full control over the markup.

I'm a freelance, processwire-using web designer based in california. work site | personal site | visuals

#3 apeisa


    Hero Member

  • Moderators
  • 3,161 posts
  • 1712

  • LocationVihti, Finland

Posted 12 January 2012 - 12:39 AM

I think one way to identify if PW is used is assets urls. Images and files are usually saved on /site/assets/files/<pageid>/filename.jpg

#4 krems04


    Distinguished Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • 0

Posted 03 April 2013 - 05:18 PM

Would looking for "site/templates" in the html also be sufficient in identifying PW?

#5 SiNNuT


    Hero Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • 431

  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 03 April 2013 - 08:23 PM

Wappalyzer has a pretty impressive list of stuff they can detect. I think they are pretty smart about it.

In addition to the suggestions of apeisa and krems04 i think they could probably do something with the http headers. PW's cookies always (or most of the times?) seem to start with 'wire=' , which seems like a pretty unique indicator. Not entirely sure about this though.

#6 diogo


    Hero Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,900 posts
  • 2304

  • LocationPorto, Portugal

Posted 03 April 2013 - 08:35 PM

@krems04, site/templates will for sure appear in most urls for js and css, but I don't think it's sufficient for identifying PW. But it sounds more than possible to have a pretty accurate guess only from the already referred characteristics.

#7 teppo


    Hero Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • 1174

  • LocationFinland

Posted 04 April 2013 - 04:47 AM

Technically speaking calls to /site/ aren't a necessity and that path can even be re-configured to something else by altering $siteDir (/index.php) or default site dir in multi-domain configuration (after moving /wire/index.config.php to /index.config.php.) Admittedly this is quite unlikely..  :)


Another thing to check would be a cookie called "wire", but that can be changed too, so it's not a flawless method either.


Overall I don't think there's anything you can use to say for 100% sure if a site is running ProcessWire. On the other hand, the fact that ProcessWire can conceal it's identity pretty well is (in my opinion) a strength; not everyone wants to let general public know which CMS they're using, for various reasons.

#8 SiNNuT


    Hero Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • 431

  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 04 April 2013 - 05:53 AM

I don't think wappalyzer claims to be 100% correct, but if we take a vanilla installation of PW i think the combination of things above is enough reason to assume something is PW. The fact that you could quite easily make some customisations so that it can't be detected doesn't invalidate the wappalyzer tool (not that i particulary like it though). I'm thinking of adding <meta name="generator" content="Joomla! - Open Source Content Management  - Version 3.0.0" /> to my templates just to throw them off. ;)

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users