CVE-2022-26593
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 categories selector in Liferay Portal 7.3.3 through 7.4.0, and Liferay DXP 7.3 before service pack 3 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the name of a asset category.
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 confidenceStored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Lifer Portal/DXP's Asset module allows remote attackers to inject malicious web scripts via the name parameter of an asset category. When other users view or select asset categories in the affected selector, the unsanitized category name is rendered, executing the injected payload in their browsers.
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< 7.3= 7.3>= 7.3.3, < 7.3.7= 7.4.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 the installed Lifer Portal/DXP versionAccess the Control Panel > Configuration > Server Administration > Index, or check the product.info key via the Gogo shell command 'product info --true'. Alternatively, locate the portal-impl.jar in the Lifer home directory and check its manifest for the Release.version value.Affected if The version is Lifer DXP 7.3 any patch level before service pack 3, Lifer Portal 7.3.3 through 7.3.6, or Lifer Portal 7.4.0.
-
Verify the Asset module is present and activeAccess the Control Panel > Assets > Asset Categories, or navigate to Content > Categories in the Lifer DXP navigation. Confirm the Asset Categories section is accessible.Affected if The Asset Categories interface is accessible and users can view the category list.
-
Check if asset categories are in useNavigate to the Asset Categories administration screen and review the existing category tree structure. Note whether any categories have been created.Affected if Any asset categories exist in the system, as the XSS payload would be stored in the category name field.
-
Determine if users have access to create or edit asset categoriesNavigate to Control Panel > Users > Roles and verify if roles other than Administrator have permissions to create, edit, or update Asset Categories via Site Administration > Content and Data > Assets > Categories > Permissions.Affected if Non-administrator users have permissions to add or modify asset categories, enabling them to inject the malicious payload.
-
Inspect existing asset category names for potential XSS payloadsIn the Asset Categories interface, view the list of categories. Examine the category names for any suspicious characters such as <script>, javascript:, onerror=, or other HTML/script injection patterns.Affected if Any category name contains unsanitized HTML or script tags that would execute when the category selector is rendered.
A user is affected if they are running a vulnerable Lifer Portal or DXP version (7.3 before SP3, 7.3.3-7.3.6, or 7.4.0) AND the Asset module is in use with categories that could contain malicious category names.
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.
dbcve · scoped7.37.3.7
Upgrade to Lifer Portal 7.4.1 or later, or apply service pack 3 for Lifer DXP 7.3. Additionally, implement proper output encoding when rendering asset category names in the UI and consider input validation for category name fields.
Lifer Portal 7.3.7+ or 7.4.1+; Lifer DXP 7.3 Service Pack 3+
- 1. Identify the exact Lifter Portal or DXP version currently deployed using the Control Panel > Configuration > Server Administration > Build information.
- 2. For Lifer Portal 7.3.3 through 7.3.6: Plan upgrade to Lifer Portal 7.3.7 or later.
- 3. For Lifer Portal 7.4.0: Plan upgrade to Lifer Portal 7.4.1 or later.
- 4. For Lifer DXP 7.3 (before service pack 3): Plan upgrade to Lifer DXP 7.3 Service Pack 3 or later.
- 5. Before upgrading in production, test the upgrade in a staging environment to verify compatibility with customizations and plugins.
- 6. Perform a full backup of the database and Lifer home directory before proceeding with the upgrade.
- 7. Follow Lifer's official upgrade documentation for your specific version path.
- 8. After upgrade, verify that the asset categories selector no longer reflects unescaped category names in the UI.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-26593 — 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-2022-26593 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