GHSA-mh9r-9pcx-rx55 CVE-2021-29050
Liferay Portal and Liferay DXP Vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in Terms of Use Page
High
Maven
- Severity
- 8.8 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.28%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 20.50% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
- Fix
- Available
- 2 packages have a fixed version
Description
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the terms of use page in the implementation for the portal services package before 5.25.0 from Liferay Portal (before 7.3.6), and Liferay DXP 7.3 before service pack 1, 7.2 before fix pack 11 allows remote attackers to accept the site's terms of use via social engineering and enticing the user to visit a malicious page.
Affected versions
Maven
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| com.liferay.portal:com.liferay.portal.impl | < 5.25.0 |
5.25.0 |
| com.liferay.portal:release.dxp.bom | >= 7.2.0, < 7.2.10.fp11 |
7.2.10.fp11 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
com.liferay.portal:com.liferay.portal.impl Maven → 5.25.0
- maven
<dependency><groupId>com.liferay.portal</groupId><artifactId>com.liferay.portal.impl</artifactId><version>5.25.0</version></dependency>- gradle
implementation("com.liferay.portal:com.liferay.portal.impl:5.25.0")
com.liferay.portal:release.dxp.bom Maven → 7.2.10.fp11
- maven
<dependency><groupId>com.liferay.portal</groupId><artifactId>release.dxp.bom</artifactId><version>7.2.10.fp11</version></dependency>- gradle
implementation("com.liferay.portal:release.dxp.bom:7.2.10.fp11")
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
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
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-6533-fhr2-f38h Liferay Portal and DXP use an incorrect cache-control header | Medium | Also affects com.liferay.portal:com.liferay.portal.impl |
| GHSA-xcj6-xpjg-c4xr Liferay Portal Stores Password Reset Tokens in Plain Text | Medium | Also affects com.liferay.portal:com.liferay.portal.impl |
| GHSA-q95h-87j6-273x Liferay Portal ComboServlet denial of service via large file combination | High | Also affects com.liferay.portal:com.liferay.portal.impl |
| GHSA-rx48-gqc2-4w47 Liferay Portal reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the google_gaget | Medium | Also affects com.liferay.portal:com.liferay.portal.impl |
| GHSA-pfwq-mr9g-gq6m Liferay is Vulnerable to Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key | Medium | Also affects com.liferay.portal:com.liferay.portal.impl |
| GHSA-2hm7-r8f3-423h Liferay Portal vulnerable to path traversal and denial-of-service in the ComboServlet | High | Also affects com.liferay.portal:com.liferay.portal.impl |
| GHSA-697h-3q6m-jwp4 Liferay Portal Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability | Medium | Also affects com.liferay.portal:com.liferay.portal.impl |
| GHSA-95h4-8mqc-4mpf Liferay Portal has unchecked input for loop condition vulnerability in XML-RPC | High | Also affects com.liferay.portal:com.liferay.portal.impl |
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