dbcve.org
Digital Experience PlatformApplication · Liferay

CVE-2025-43777

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-09-09
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 2024.q1.20 / 2025.Q1.17 or later.
See remediation →
62/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Liferay Portal 7.4.0 through 7.4.3.132, and Liferay DXP 2025.Q2.0 through 2025.Q2.9, 2025.Q1.0 through 2025.Q1.16, 2024.Q4.0 through 2024.Q4.7, 2024.Q3.0 through 2024.Q3.13, 2024.Q2.0 through 2024.Q2.13 and 2024.Q1.1 through 2024.Q1.19 exposes "Internal Server Error" in the response body when a login attempt is made with a deleted Client Secret.

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 confidence

Liferay Portal and DXP expose a verbose 'Internal Server Error' in the HTTP response body when authentication is attempted using a deleted OAuth client secret. This information disclosure allows attackers to infer the existence of deleted credentials and potentially gather internal system details through error message differences.

MitigationConfigure the application to return a generic authentication failure message (e.g., 'Invalid credentials') instead of exposing internal server error details when a deleted client secret is used.

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
Digital Experience PlatformApplication
Affected:>= 2024.q1.1, < 2024.q1.20>= 2024.q2.0, <= 2024.q2.13>= 2024.Q3.0, <= 2024.Q3.13>= 2024.q4.0, <= 2024.q4.7>= 2025.Q1.0, < 2025.Q1.17>= 2025.Q2.0, < 2025.Q2.10
Liferay PortalApplication
Affected:>= 7.4.0, <= 7.4.3.132

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify Lifer Portal/DXP installed version
    Check the Lifer bundle or WAR file for the version. Common locations: look for version in the OSGi console, check portal-ext.properties, or examine the liferay-web.xml/manifest files in the deployed application.
    Affected if The installed version falls within any of these ranges: DXP >= 2024.q1.1 and < 2024.q1.20; DXP >= 2024.q2.0 and <= 2024.q2.13; DXP >= 2024.Q3.0 and <= 2024.Q3.13; DXP >= 2024.q4.0 and <= 2024.q4.7; DXP >= 2025.Q1.0 and < 2025.Q1.17; DXP >= 2025.Q2.0 and < 2025.Q2.10; Portal >= 7.4.0 and <= 7.4.3.132
  2. Confirm OAuth client authentication is in use
    Review the Lifer configuration for OAuth-enabled applications. Check portal-ext.properties or the Control Panel for OAuth client registrations under the OAuth Applications menu in the Admin section.
    Affected if OAuth 2.0 client applications are registered and authentication via client credentials is enabled in the environment.
  3. Test authentication response with a deleted OAuth client secret
    Send an OAuth token request (POST to /o/oauth2/token) using a known-deleted or revoked client_id and client_secret. Inspect the HTTP response body for verbose error content versus a generic authentication failure message.
    Affected if The response body contains detailed internal server error information, stack traces, or distinguishes between non-existent clients versus deleted/revoked clients instead of returning a generic error.
  4. Review HTTP response headers and body for information leakage
    Compare the error responses from: (1) a non-existent OAuth client, (2) a valid but deleted OAuth client secret, and (3) an invalid but active client secret. Capture and compare the full response body and status codes.
    Affected if The error messages differ between deleted credentials versus non-existent credentials, exposing information about the credential lifecycle.

If the installed Lifer version is within the affected ranges and OAuth client authentication is configured, test the error response with a deleted OAuth client secret - if verbose internal server error details are returned instead of a generic authentication failure message, the environment is affected by this CVE.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 2024.q1.20 / 2025.Q1.17 / 2025.Q2.10 or later
Fixed in 2024.q1.202025.Q1.172025.Q2.10
Interim mitigation

Configure the application to return a generic authentication failure message (e.g., 'Invalid credentials') instead of exposing internal server error details when a deleted client secret is used.

Recommended fix High confidence

Lillar DXP 2024.q1.20, 2024.q2.14, 2024.Q3.14, 2024.q4.8 or later; Lillar Portal 7.4.3.133 or later

  1. 1. Identify the exact Lillar version currently running using the Lillar Control Panel or Gogo shell command "version"
  2. 2. For DXP 2024.q1.x: Upgrade to 2024.q1.20 or later
  3. 3. For DXP 2024.q2.x: Upgrade to 2024.q2.14 or later
  4. 4. For DXP 2024.q3.x: Upgrade to 2024.Q3.14 or later
  5. 5. For DXP 2024.q4.x: Upgrade to 2024.q4.8 or later
  6. 6. For Lillar Portal 7.4.x: Upgrade to 7.4.3.133 or later (next patch release after 7.4.3.132)
  7. 7. After upgrade, verify the fix by attempting OAuth2 login with a deleted client secret - should return generic error, not stack trace
  8. 8. Review Lillar's official security bulletin for any additional required patches
Caveat Standard Lillar upgrade precautions apply - test in staging environment, backup database, review breaking changes in release notes before production upgrade

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Digital Experience Platform Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,380
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,808.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-43777 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-43777 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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