CVE-2022-28978
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 · uneditedStored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Site module's user membership administration page in Liferay Portal 7.0.1 through 7.4.1, and Liferay DXP 7.0 before fix pack 102, 7.1 before fix pack 26, 7.2 before fix pack 15, and 7.3 before service pack 3 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the a user's name.
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 Liferel's Site module user membership administration page allows authenticated attackers to inject malicious JavaScript or HTML through a user's name field. The payload persists in the database and executes when administrators view the user membership 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= 7.3>= 7.0.1, < 7.4.2CVSS 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 Liferel Portal/DXP versionCheck the installed Liferel version via the control panel (System Settings > Foundation > Product Menu > Instance Configuration) or inspect the portal-ext.properties file. On the server, run: curl -s http://localhost:8080/api/jsonws/invoke?cmd=%7B%22%2Fcapability%2Fcapability%22%3A%5B%5D%7D or check the LIFERAY_HOME/portal-impl.jar version manifest.Affected if The installed version matches 7.0.x, 7.1.x, 7.2.x, 7.3.x, or any version >= 7.0.1 but less than 7.4.2
-
Verify Site module user membership administration accessLog in as an authenticated user with administrative privileges and navigate to Control Panel > Users > Users and Organizations > select a user > Site Memberships tab, or access the URL pattern: /group/control_panel/manage?p_p_id=com_liferel_portlet_usersadmin_UserAdminPortletAffected if The Site Memberships administration page is accessible and functional in the environment
-
Inspect user name fields for output encodingView the HTML source of the user membership administration page (right-click > View Page Source). Search for user display name fields and verify if they are properly encoded. Specifically look for unencoded special characters like <, >, ", ', or script tags in the rendered HTML.Affected if User name fields render raw HTML/JavaScript without proper encoding (e.g., <script> appears as <script>)
-
Check database for stored XSS payloads in user name fieldsQuery the User_ table in the Liferel database: SELECT userId, firstName, lastName FROM User_ WHERE firstName LIKE '%<%' OR lastName LIKE '%<%'; or similar pattern matching for script tags or JavaScript event handlers.Affected if Database contains any user records with malicious JavaScript/HTML payloads in name fields that would execute when viewed
A user is affected if their Liferel installation is version 7.0.x, 7.1.x, 7.2.x, 7.3.x, or between 7.0.1 and 7.4.1, and the Site module user membership administration page renders user-supplied name fields without proper HTML encoding.
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 · scoped7.4.2
Apply the appropriate vendor fix packs (FP 102 for DXP 7.0, FP 26 for 7.1, FP 15 for 7.2, SP 3 for 7.3) or upgrade to Liferel Portal 7.4.2+. Additionally, implement output encoding on user-supplied name fields and enforce Content Security Policy headers to mitigate XSS risks.
Lifer Portal 7.4.2 or later; or Lifer DXP fix pack 102+ (7.0), fix pack 26+ (7.1), fix pack 15+ (7.2), service pack 3+ (7.3)
- Upgrade Lifer Portal to version 7.4.2 or later, OR apply the appropriate fix pack for your DXP version: Lifer DXP 7.0 to fix pack 102, Lifer DXP 7.1 to fix pack 26, Lifer DXP 7.2 to fix pack 15, Lifer DXP 7.3 to service pack 3
- After upgrading/patching, verify the fix by accessing the Site module's user membership administration page and confirming that user names are properly sanitized
- Test with a benign script tag in a user name (e.g., <script>alert('XSS')</script>) to confirm the payload is rendered as text rather than executed
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-2022-28978 — 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-2022-28978 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