CVE-2025-43754
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 · uneditedUsername enumeration vulnerability in Liferay Portal 7.4.0 through 7.4.3.132, and Liferay DXP 2024.Q4.0 through 2024.Q4.7, 2024.Q3.0 through 2024.Q3.13, 2024.Q2.0 through 2024.Q2.13, 2024.Q1.1 through 2024.Q1.14 and 7.4 GA through update 92 allows attackers to determine if an account exist in the application by inspecting the server processing time of the login request.
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 confidenceLifter Portal and DXP contain a username enumeration vulnerability where the server's response time differs based on whether an account exists, allowing attackers to determine valid usernames by measuring login request processing times (timing side-channel attack).
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>= 2024.Q1.1, < 2024.Q1.15>= 2024.q2.0, <= 2024.q2.13>= 2024.Q3.0, <= 2024.Q3.13>= 2024.q4.0, <= 2024.q4.7= 7.4>= 7.4.0, <= 7.4.3.132CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/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 product and versionLocate the Lifer installation directory and check the version file or portal properties. Common locations include portal.properties, portal-impl.properties, or the WAR file manifest. Look for version properties like 'lp.version' or check the patcher info.Affected if The product is Lifer DXP or Lifer Portal with a version matching: 2024.Q1.1 to <2024.Q1.15, 2024.Q2.0 to <=2024.Q2.13, 2024.Q3.0 to <=2024.Q3.13, 2024.Q4.0 to <=2024.Q4.7, or 7.4; OR Lifer Portal 7.4.0 to 7.4.3.132
-
Confirm authentication endpoint is accessibleVerify that the Lifer login portal endpoint is exposed and reachable. This is typically at /c/portal/login or /web/guest/home under the login portlet. Check network access controls and firewall rules.Affected if The login endpoint is accessible from untrusted networks, enabling external attackers to send login requests.
-
Review authentication configurationExamine the authentication configuration files such as portal.properties or portal-ext.properties for login settings. Look for settings related to login attempts, password validation, and session handling.Affected if Default authentication configuration is in use without constant-time response implementation.
-
Check for security fixesReview any installed hotfixes or patches. Check the Lifer patches applied to the installation and compare against known fixed versions for this CVE.Affected if No patches addressing CVE-2025-43754 have been applied and the version falls within affected ranges.
The environment is affected if Lifer DXP or Portal version falls within the listed affected ranges AND the login endpoint is accessible to potential attackers.
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 · scoped2024.Q1.15
Implement constant-time authentication responses to ensure identical processing time regardless of whether the username exists, eliminating the timing differential that enables enumeration.
LPortal: 7.4.3.133+ | DXP 2024.Q1: 2024.Q1.15+ | DXP 2024.Q2: 2024.Q2.14+ | DXP 2024.Q3: 2024.Q3.14+ | DXP 2024.Q4: 2024.Q4.8+
- 1. Identify the current Liferay installation version (Portal or DXP)
- 2. For Liferay DXP 2024.Q1.x: Upgrade to version 2024.Q1.15 or later
- 3. For Liferay DXP 2024.Q2.x: Upgrade to version 2024.Q2.14 or later
- 4. For Liferay DXP 2024.Q3.x: Upgrade to version 2024.Q3.14 or later
- 5. For Liferay DXP 2024.Q4.x: Upgrade to version 2024.Q4.8 or later
- 6. For Liferay Portal 7.4.x: Upgrade to version 7.4.3.133 or later
- 7. After upgrade, verify the login timing behavior no longer reveals account existence information
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-43754 — 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-2025-43754 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