CVE-2022-26596
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 Journal module's web content display configuration page in Liferay Portal 7.1.0 through 7.3.3, and Liferay DXP 7.0 before fix pack 94, 7.1 before fix pack 19, and 7.2 before fix pack 8, allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via web content template names.
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 Journal module allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via malicious web content template names displayed on the web content display configuration page. The injected payload executes when other users view the affected configuration page.
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= 7.0= 7.1= 7.2>= 7.1.0, <= 7.3.3CVSS 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 Lifer Portal/DXP installation versionAccess the Lifer Control Panel, go to Configuration > Server Administration > Product Information, or check the portal-ext.properties file for the version property. Alternatively, examine the WAR file or Docker image version.Affected if The installed version is 7.0.x, 7.1.x, 7.2.x, 7.3.0 through 7.3.3, or any version between 7.1.0 and 7.3.3 inclusive.
-
Verify Journal module is deployed and activeLog in as an administrator, navigate to Site Administration > Content & Data > Web Content. Confirm the module loads and you can access the Web Content section.Affected if The Journal module is present and accessible in the Lifer installation.
-
Inspect existing web content template names for XSS payloadsIn the Web Content section, go to the Templates tab. Review each template's name field for suspicious characters such as <script>, javascript:, onerror=, or HTML tags like <img>, <iframe>.Affected if Any template name contains unsanitized HTML or JavaScript code that could execute when displayed.
-
Check web content display configurations for injected template referencesNavigate to the page containing web content display portlets. Edit the configuration of each display widget and examine the template name field in the display settings. Look for encoded or raw script tags in the template selection.Affected if The web content display configuration shows template names with embedded script or HTML elements.
-
Review recent audit logs for template creation/modificationAccess the Lifer audit system via the Control Panel > Security > Audit, or check server logs for entries containing 'JournalTemplate' or 'TemplateService' with unusual input patterns.Affected if Audit logs show template modifications containing potential XSS payloads in name fields.
A user is affected if they run Lifer Portal 7.1.0 through 7.3.3 or DXP 7.0-7.2, have the Journal module enabled, and possess web content templates with unsanitized names containing script or HTML tags.
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 · scopedApply the appropriate fix pack for the affected DXP version (94 for 7.0, 19 for 7.1, 8 for 7.2) or upgrade to Lifer Portal 7.4+; alternatively, implement input validation/sanitization on template name fields as a compensating control.
Liferi Portal 7.4+ or Liferi DXP fix packs (7.0 FP94+, 7.1 FP19+, 7.2 FP8+)
- 1. Identify the current Liferi Portal or DXP version in production by checking the Liferi Portal Control Panel or server startup logs.
- 2. For Liferi Portal 7.1.x through 7.3.3: Upgrade to Liferi Portal 7.4 or later (7.4.x is the next major release after 7.3.x).
- 3. For Liferi DXP 7.0: Apply Fix Pack 94 or later.
- 4. For Liferi DXP 7.1: Apply Fix Pack 19 or later.
- 5. For Liferi DXP 7.2: Apply Fix Pack 8 or later.
- 6. After applying the fix pack or upgrade, restart the Liferi server.
- 7. Verify the fix by accessing the Journal module's web content display configuration page and confirming that template names are properly sanitized/encoded.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-26596 — 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-2022-26596 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