Skip to content

GHSA-pw7p-3648-qqmg CVE-2024-25604

Liferay Portal and Liferay DXP Allows Authenticated Users with View Permissions to Edit Permissions

Medium Maven
Severity
6.5 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.41%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 35.79% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
Available
2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Liferay Portal 7.2.0 through 7.4.3.4, and older unsupported versions, and Liferay DXP 7.4.13, 7.3 before service pack 3, 7.2 before fix pack 17, and older unsupported versions does not properly check user permissions, which allows remote authenticated users with the VIEW user permission to edit their own permission via the User and Organizations section of the Control Panel.

Affected versions

Maven

PackageVulnerableFixed in
com.liferay.portal:release.dxp.bom 1 listed versions No fix yet
com.liferay.portal:release.dxp.bom
< 7.2.10.fp17
7.2.10.fp17
com.liferay.portal:release.portal.bom
>= 7.2.0, < 7.4.3.5-ga5
7.4.3.5-ga5

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:release.dxp.bom Maven → 7.2.10.fp17

maven
<dependency><groupId>com.liferay.portal</groupId><artifactId>release.dxp.bom</artifactId><version>7.2.10.fp17</version></dependency>
gradle
implementation("com.liferay.portal:release.dxp.bom:7.2.10.fp17")

com.liferay.portal:release.portal.bom Maven → 7.4.3.5-ga5

maven
<dependency><groupId>com.liferay.portal</groupId><artifactId>release.portal.bom</artifactId><version>7.4.3.5-ga5</version></dependency>
gradle
implementation("com.liferay.portal:release.portal.bom:7.4.3.5-ga5")

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 6.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • 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. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

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