CVE-2024-25145
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 Portal Search module's Search Result app in Liferay Portal 7.2.0 through 7.4.3.11, and older unsupported versions, and Liferay DXP 7.4 before update 8, 7.3 before update 4, 7.2 before fix pack 17, and older unsupported versions allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML into the Search Result app's search result if highlighting is disabled by adding any searchable content (e.g., blog, message board message, web content article) to the application.
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 · moderate confidenceStored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Lifer Portal/DXP's Portal Search module allows authenticated users to inject malicious web scripts into searchable content (blogs, message board messages, web content articles) when the highlighting feature is disabled. The injected script executes in the Search Result app when users view search results.
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< 7.2= 7.2= 7.3= 7.4<= 7.2.1>= 7.3.0, <= 7.3.7>= 7.4.0, < 7.4.3.12CVSS 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 your Lifer Portal/DXP versionCheck the installed Lifer Portal or DXP version in your environment (typically available in the control panel, server info, or deployment manifests)Affected if The installed version falls within: Lifer DXP 7.2 (any fix pack before 17), 7.3 (versions up to and including update 3), 7.4 (versions before 7.4.3.12), or Lifer Portal <= 7.2.1, 7.3.0-7.3.7, or 7.4.0-7.4.3.11
-
Check if Portal Search highlighting is disabledInspect the Search configuration settings in the Portal Search module or control panel to determine whether the highlighting feature is enabled or disabledAffected if The highlighting feature is explicitly disabled in your Search configuration
-
Verify searchable content types are accessibleConfirm whether your instance has blogs, message board messages, or web content articles modules enabled and accessible to authenticated usersAffected if Any of these content types (blogs, message boards, web content) are available and searchable in your environment
-
Confirm Search Result widget is in useCheck if the Search Result app or portlet is deployed and actively used to display search results to usersAffected if The Search Result widget is configured to display search results to end users
You are affected if your Lifer version is in the affected range AND the highlighting feature is disabled, allowing authenticated users to inject scripts into searchable content that will execute when others view search results.
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 · scoped7.27.4.3.12
Upgrade to Lifer Portal 7.4.3.12+, Lifer DXP 7.4 update 8+, 7.3 update 4+, or 7.2 fix pack 17+. Alternatively, ensure highlighting is enabled as a workaround.
LPortal 7.4.3.12+ / DXP 7.4 update 8+ / DXP 7.3 update 4+ / DXP 7.2 fix pack 17+
- For Liferay Portal 7.2.x users: Apply Liferay Portal 7.2 fix pack 17 or later
- For LPortal 7.3.x users: Upgrade to LPortal 7.3.7 and apply update 4 (or later), or migrate to a supported version
- For LPortal 7.4.x users: Upgrade to LPortal 7.4.3.12 or later
- For Lifer DXP 7.2 users: Apply DXP fix pack 17 or later
- For Lifer DXP 7.3 users: Apply DXP 7.3 update 4 or later
- For Lifer DXP 7.4 users: Apply DXP 7.4 update 8 or later
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $7,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-25145 — 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-2024-25145 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