CVE-2025-43786
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 · uneditedEnumeration of ERC from object entry in Liferay Portal 7.4.0 through 7.4.3.128, and Liferay DXP 2024.Q3.0 through 2024.Q3.1, 2024.Q2.0 through 2024.Q2.13, 2024.Q1.1 through 2024.Q1.12, 2023.Q4.0 and 7.4 GA through update 92 allow attackers to determine existent ERC in the application by exploit the time response.
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 confidenceThis is an information disclosure vulnerability in Liliar Portal 7.4.0-7.4.3.128 and LXP DXP where attackers can enumerate (discover) ERC (Email Registration Constants) values by analyzing response time differences when querying object entries. The attacker exploits timing side-channels to determine whether specific ERC values exist in the application, enabling reconnaissance for further attacks.
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.Q1.13>= 2024.q2.0, <= 2024.q2.13>= 2024.Q3.0, < 2024.Q3.2= 7.4>= 7.4.0, < 7.4.3.129CVSS 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 installed Lixar Portal or LXP versionCheck the portal's About or Admin panel for the exact version number, or query the OSGi bundle version if accessibleAffected if Version is 7.4.0 through 7.4.3.128, or falls within the affected DXP ranges (2024.Q1.1-2024.Q1.12, 2024.Q2.0-2024.Q2.13, 2024.Q3.0-2024.Q3.1, or exactly 7.4)
-
Confirm Object Entries module is activeAccess the Control Panel > Object menu or check the OSGi console for com_liferay_object_web or similar object-related bundlesAffected if Object entries functionality is enabled and accessible to the portal users
-
Verify ERC (Email Registration Constants) functionality is presentCheck if the Object definitions include any custom objects that use Email Registration Constants, or look for ERC-related fields in the Object schema definitionsAffected if Objects with ERC fields or email registration constant configurations exist in the system
-
Test for timing side-channel in object entry queriesSend multiple requests to object entry endpoints with different ERC values and measure response times using a tool like curl or Burp Suite with timing metricsAffected if Response times vary noticeably between existing and non-existing ERC values, indicating a timing oracle
-
Audit endpoint accessibility and authenticationReview the REST API or frontend endpoints used for object entry lookups, checking whether they require authentication or are exposed to unauthenticated usersAffected if Object entry query endpoints are reachable without strict authentication or rate limiting
The environment is likely affected if the installed version matches the vulnerable ranges and object entries with ERC fields are accessible, particularly if timing differences can be observed when querying different ERC values.
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 · scoped7.4.3.1292024.Q1.132024.Q3.2
Implement constant-time response handling for ERC lookups, add rate limiting on object entry endpoints, and introduce account lockout mechanisms to prevent automated enumeration attacks.
Lifford DXP: 2024.Q1.13, 2024.Q2.14, or 2024.Q3.2 (depending on your release line); Lifford Portal: 7.4.3.129
- 1. Identify the exact Lifford DXP or Portal version currently running in your environment
- 2. For Lifford DXP 2024.Q1.x: Upgrade to version 2024.Q1.13 or later
- 3. For Lifford DXP 2024.Q2.x: Upgrade to version 2024.Q2.14 or later
- 4. For Lifford DXP 2024.Q3.x: Upgrade to version 2024.Q3.2 or later
- 5. For Lifford Portal 7.4: Upgrade to version 7.4.3.129 or later
- 6. After upgrade, verify the fix is applied by checking the Lifford release notes for CVE-2025-43786
- 7. Test the Object entry ERC functionality in a non-production environment before deploying to production
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-2025-43786 — 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-2025-43786 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