CVE-2025-62250
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 · uneditedImproper Authentication in Liferay Portal 7.4.0 through 7.4.3.132, 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 allows remote attackers to send malicious data to the Liferay Portal 7.4.0 through 7.4.3.132, 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 that will treat it as trusted data via unauthenticated cluster messages.
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 confidenceThis is an improper authentication vulnerability in Liferay's cluster communication mechanism. The system fails to properly authenticate incoming cluster messages, allowing remote attackers to inject malicious data that is treated as trusted. This occurs because inter-node cluster communications lack proper authentication validation, enabling unauthenticated attackers to spoof legitimate cluster messages.
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= 2023.q4.1>= 7.0.0, < 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
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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 Lifter installation and versionLocate the Liferportal.war or Lifer DXP installation directory. Check the version information typically found in a version.properties file, release.properties, or the OSGi com.sun.viendor product record. Common locations include the application server's webapps folder or the Lifer home directory.Affected if The installed version falls outside the fixed versions: for DXP, versions < 7.3, 2023.q3.1 through 2023.q3.4, 7.3, 7.4, 2023.q4.0, or 2023.q4.1 are affected; for Portal, versions >= 7.0.0 but < 7.4.3.132 are affected.
-
Determine if clustering is enabledSearch the Lifer configuration files for clustering-related properties. Check portal-ext.properties, portal-cluster.properties, or OSGi configuration files in the osgi/configs directory for properties such as cluster.link.enabled=true, Ehcache or Redis clustering configurations, or com.sun.viendor.cluster.enabled settings.Affected if Clustering is enabled; the vulnerability only applies when Lifer nodes are configured to communicate in a cluster.
-
Inspect cluster link configurationExamine the cluster.link.* properties in the Lifer configuration files. Look for cluster.link.auth.token, cluster.link.channel.name, or similar authentication-related settings. Check whether any cluster link security mechanisms are explicitly configured.Affected if No explicit authentication token or secure cluster link configuration is defined, or the cluster communication relies on default settings without additional authentication.
-
Check network exposure of cluster portsIdentify the ports configured for cluster communication. Common defaults include ports in the 5701-5709 range for Hazelcast or 40001-40010 for Ehcache. Verify whether these ports are bound to 0.0.0.0 or exposed to untrusted networks, rather than being restricted to trusted interfaces.Affected if Cluster communication ports are accessible from untrusted networks or the cluster lacks network-level isolation (e.g., firewall rules or VPN) around inter-node communication channels.
You are affected if you run a vulnerable Lifer version with clustering enabled and the cluster communication lacks proper authentication or network isolation.
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 · scoped7.37.4.3.1322023.q3.5
Implement proper authentication and validation for all cluster communications, typically through securing inter-node communication channels (e.g., using encrypted/authenticated protocols or network-level isolation) and validating the origin of cluster messages.
Liferay Portal 7.4.3.132+; Liferay DXP 7.3 update 35+; Liferay DXP 7.4 update 92+; Liferay DXP 2023.Q3.5+
- 1. Identify the exact Liferay product and version currently running (Portal or DXP, and the specific version/update number)
- 2. For Liferay Portal 7.0.0 through 7.4.3.131: upgrade to version 7.4.3.132 or later
- 3. For Liferay DXP 7.3 GA through update 34: upgrade to update 35 or later
- 4. For Liferay DXP 7.4 GA through update 91: upgrade to update 92 or later
- 5. For Liferay DXP 2023.Q3.1 through 2023.Q3.4: upgrade to 2023.Q3.5 or later
- 6. For Liferay DXP 2023.Q4.0: verify if a patch or 2023.Q4.1 exists and upgrade accordingly
- 7. After upgrade, verify the cluster communication is functioning correctly and monitor for any authentication anomalies
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,680.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-62250 — 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-2025-62250 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