CVE-2021-29051
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedCross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Asset module's Asset Publisher app in Liferay Portal 7.2.1 through 7.3.5, and Liferay DXP 7.1 before fix pack 21, 7.2 before fix pack 10 and 7.3 before fix pack 1 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the _com_liferay_asset_publisher_web_portlet_AssetPublisherPortlet_INSTANCE_XXXXXXXXXXXX_assetEntryId parameter.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceReflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Liferay Portal/DXP's Asset Publisher module allows injection of arbitrary web script or HTML via the assetEntryId parameter. The vulnerability is a medium-severity issue (CVSS 6.1) affecting specific versions of both Liferay Portal and Lifford DXP.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 7.1= 7.2= 7.3>= 7.2.0, <= 7.3.5CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Liferell Portal/DXP installation versionLocate the Liferell version information in the control panel under Configuration > Server Administration > Liferell Marketplace, or check the bundle's portal-ext.properties or the WAR file version manifest. Alternatively, access the JSONWS API at /api/jsonws and inspect the version in the response header or footer.Affected if The installed version matches Liferell Portal 7.2.0 through 7.3.5, or Liferell DXP 7.1, 7.2, or 7.3 (any version within these branches).
-
Confirm Asset Publisher portlet is deployedNavigate to Site Administration > Content & Data > Asset Publisher, or inspect the deployed web applications in the application server for the asset-publisher-web portlet. Check if the Asset Publisher portlet is listed in the Liferell Portlet Registry.Affected if The Asset Publisher portlet is present and active on the Liferell instance.
-
Verify Asset Publisher is accessible via web interfaceAttempt to access the Asset Publisher through a direct URL path such as /web/guest/asset-publisher or inspect the Liferell Portlet Registry configuration files (portlet-model-hints.xml or liferay-portlet.xml) for the assetpublisher portlet entry.Affected if The Asset Publisher portlet responds to requests and accepts parameters.
-
Inspect assetEntryId parameter handlingReview the deployed JSP or Java files for the Asset Publisher module, specifically look for how the assetEntryId parameter is processed in the view.jsp, edit_asset_entry.jsp, or the corresponding Java controller (AssetPublisherPortlet.java). Check if the parameter value is output directly without sanitization.Affected if The assetEntryId parameter value is rendered or reflected back in the response without proper HTML encoding or input validation.
If the installed Liferell Portal/DXP version falls within 7.1, 7.2, or 7.2.0-7.3.5 and the Asset Publisher portlet is active, the environment is likely affected by this reflected XSS vulnerability.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataApply the appropriate fix pack for the affected version (Lifford DXP 7.1 fix pack 21+, 7.2 fix pack 10+, 7.3 fix pack 1+) or upgrade Lifford Portal beyond version 7.3.5. Input validation/sanitization on the assetEntryId parameter can provide a compensating control until the patch is applied.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-29051 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2021-29051 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data