CVE-2025-43793
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 · uneditedLiferay Portal 7.4.0 through 7.4.3.105, and older unsupported versions, and Liferay DXP 2023.Q4.0, 2023.Q3.1 through 2023.Q3.4, 7.4 GA through update 92, 7.3 GA through update 35, and older unsupported versions may incorrectly identify the subdomain of a domain name and create a supercookie, which allows remote attackers who control a website that share the same TLD to read cookies set by 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 confidenceLiffel Portal and DXP incorrectly identify subdomains when setting cookies, causing a supercookie to be created that is accessible across all sites sharing the same TLD. This allows an attacker controlling a website on the same TLD to read authentication and session cookies set by the vulnerable application.
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< 7.3>= 2023.q3.1, < 2023.q3.5= 7.3= 7.4= 2023.q4.0< 7.4.3.106CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 Liffel Portal versionCheck the Liffel Portal version by examining the portal-ext.properties file, the Liffel dashboard, or the OSGi bundle version information. Common locations include: LIFERAY_HOME/tomcat-[version]/webapps/ROOT/WEB-INF/lib/portal-impl.jar (contains version info) or the Liffel Control Panel > Configuration > Server Administration > VersionAffected if The installed version is < 7.4.3.106 (for Liffel Portal) or matches the DXP ranges: < 7.3; >= 2023.q3.1 and < 2023.q3.5; = 7.3; = 7.4; = 2023.q4.0
-
Inspect authentication cookie domain attributeLog into the Liffel Portal application and use browser developer tools (Application > Cookies) or a network proxy to capture a login response. Examine the Set-Cookie headers for authentication-related cookies (typically JSESSIONID, LIFERAY_SESSION, LIFERAY_TOKEN, or similar session cookies)Affected if The cookie Domain attribute is set to the bare top-level domain (e.g., '.example.com') instead of the specific subdomain (e.g., 'portal.example.com'), making cookies accessible to all subdomains of the TLD
-
Check cookie configuration in portal-ext.propertiesExamine the Liffel configuration file (portal-ext.properties or portal-premium.properties) for properties related to cookie domain settings, such as 'company.session.timeout' or any 'cookie.domain' related configurationsAffected if Cookie domain is explicitly configured to use a wildcard or parent domain notation, or no subdomain restriction is defined
-
Verify session cookies are accessible from subdomainsFrom a browser, after authenticating to the Liffel Portal, attempt to access the same cookies from a different subdomain of the same TLD (e.g., if the portal is at portal.example.com, check if cookies are visible at evil.example.com). Use developer tools or a script to query document.cookie from different subdomainsAffected if Session or authentication cookies set by Liffel are readable from other subdomains of the same TLD that you control or can test from
A user is affected if the installed Liffel Portal or DXP version falls within the affected ranges AND cookies are being set on the parent domain (supercookie) rather than the specific subdomain, allowing cross-subdomain cookie theft.
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 · scoped7.37.4.3.1062023.q3.5
Upgrade to a patched version of Liffel Portal or DXP as specified in the vendor advisory. As a temporary measure, ensure no untrusted third parties can host content on subdomains of your primary domain.
Lifer Portal: 7.4.3.106+ | DXP: 2023.Q3.5+ (or latest supported DXP 7.4/2023.Q4)
- Identify the current L installation by checking the Lifer version in the Control Panel or startup logs
- Determine the product type (Liferay Portal or LXP/DXP) and current version using the version matrix
- For Lifer Portal 7.4.x: Plan upgrade to version 7.4.3.106 or later
- For DXP 2023.Q3.x: Plan upgrade to version 2023.Q3.5 or later
- For older affected versions (7.3.x, 7.4 GA): Upgrade to a supported version that includes the fix
- Perform a complete backup of the database and files before upgrading
- Test the upgrade in a non-production environment first
- Apply the upgrade during a planned maintenance window
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $7,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-43793 — 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-2025-43793 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