Skip to content

GHSA-vgqx-447m-wvcj CVE-2025-62260

Liferay Portal Vulnerable to DoS via Crafted Headless API Request

High Maven
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.39%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 32.67% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
Fix
7.4.3.100
Upgrade com.liferay.portal:release.portal.bom to this version or later

Description

Liferay Portal 7.4.0 through 7.4.3.99, and Liferay DXP 2023.Q3.1 through 2023.Q3.4, 7.4 GA through update 92, 7.3 GA through update 35, and older unsupported versions does not limit the number of objects returned from Headless API requests, which allows remote attackers to perform denial-of-service (DoS) attacks on the application by executing a request that returns a large number of objects.

Affected versions

Maven

PackageVulnerableFixed in
com.liferay.portal:release.portal.bom
>= 7.4.0-ga1, < 7.4.3.100
7.4.3.100

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.portal.bom Maven → 7.4.3.100

maven
<dependency><groupId>com.liferay.portal</groupId><artifactId>release.portal.bom</artifactId><version>7.4.3.100</version></dependency>
gradle
implementation("com.liferay.portal:release.portal.bom:7.4.3.100")

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Implementation: Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.

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-378f-8q54-3fqx
Liferay Portal is vulnerable to Stored XSS through Forms text type field
Medium 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