Skip to content
Log inStart free trial

GHSA-7q33-gwcm-r6cj CVE-2025-43745

Liferay Portal CSRF Vulnerability via Endpoint Parameter

Medium Maven
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.25%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 16.16% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Fix
None yet
No fixed version published

Description

A CSRF vulnerability in Liferay Portal 7.4.0 through 7.4.3.132, and Liferay DXP 2025.Q2.0 through 2025.Q2.7, 2025.Q1.0 through 2025.Q1.14, 2024.Q4.0 through 2024.Q4.7, 2024.Q3.1 through 2024.Q3.13, 2024.Q2.0 through 2024.Q2.13, 2024.Q1.1 through 2024.Q1.19 and 7.4 GA through update 92 allows remote attackers to performs cross-origin request on behalf of the authenticated user via the endpoint parameter.

Affected versions

Maven

PackageVulnerableFixed in
com.liferay.portal:release.portal.bom
>= 7.4.0-ga1, <= 7.4.3.132-ga132
 No fix yet

How to fix

No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Active
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 6.5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
  • Implementation: Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
  • Architecture and Design: Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
  • Architecture and Design: Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
  • Architecture and Design: Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller: When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same. Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult. This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
  • Architecture and Design: Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
  • Implementation: Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.

References

Advisories

Packages

Other links

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-2j97-4jmq-c4xf
Liferay Portal Vulnerable to Reflected XSS via the selectedLanguageId Parameter
Medium Also affects com.liferay.portal:release.portal.bom
GHSA-56jv-4ww3-65mw
Liferay Portal is vulnerable to XSS in the Blogs widget
Medium Also affects com.liferay.portal:release.portal.bom
GHSA-f5vh-4rj2-w8r8
Liferay Portal is vulnerable to DNS rebinding attacks
Medium Also affects com.liferay.portal:release.portal.bom
GHSA-8hw3-ghwv-crfh
Liferay Portal vulnerable to password enumeration
Medium Also affects com.liferay.portal:release.portal.bom
GHSA-gv7w-jh8g-vr73
Liferay Portal Does Not Limit Access to APIs Before Email Verification
Medium Also affects com.liferay.portal:release.portal.bom
GHSA-gh4w-8qgq-8w9r
Liferay Portal Vulnerable to CSRF in Headless APIs
Medium Also affects com.liferay.portal:release.portal.bom
GHSA-xcj6-xpjg-c4xr
Liferay Portal Stores Password Reset Tokens in Plain Text
Medium Also affects com.liferay.portal:release.portal.bom
GHSA-vgqx-447m-wvcj
Liferay Portal Vulnerable to DoS via Crafted Headless API Request
High Also affects com.liferay.portal:release.portal.bom
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor