CVE-2025-62255
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 · uneditedSelf Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability on the edit Knowledge Base article page in Liferay Portal 7.4.0 through 7.4.3.101, and older unsupported versions, and Liferay DXP 2023.Q3.1 through 2023.Q3.5, 7.4 GA through update 92, and older unsupported versions allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted payload injected into an attachment's filename.
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 confidenceSelf XSS vulnerability in Liferay Portal and DXP allows authenticated users to inject malicious web scripts via crafted filenames when uploading attachments to Knowledge Base articles. The payload executes in the context of the user's own session when viewing or editing the KB article.
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= 7.3= 7.4= 2023.q3.1= 2023.q3.2= 2023.q3.3= 2023.q3.4= 2023.q3.5< 7.4.3.102CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/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 Lifford Portal or DXP versionAccess the Lifford Control Panel, go to Configuration > Server Information, or inspect the portal-ext.properties file for the version property. Alternatively, check the WAR file version if manually deployed.Affected if The installed version is < 7.4.3.102 for Lifford Portal, or matches 7.3, 7.4, or any 2023.q3.x version for DXP.
-
Confirm Knowledge Base module is enabledNavigate to Control Panel > Apps > Lifford Marketplace or check the modules under the KB service in the Lifford OSGi console. Verify the com.knowledge.base.service bundle is active.Affected if The KB article functionality is installed and active in the environment.
-
Check for existing KB article attachmentsNavigate to the Knowledge Base section via the Lifford UI or query the KBArticleAttachment table in the database. Identify any attachments associated with KB articles.Affected if There are attachments present on KB articles in the system.
-
Inspect attachment filenames for unsanitized contentReview the filenames of KB article attachments. Look for filenames containing HTML tags, script elements, or JavaScript event handlers (such as <script>, onerror=, onload=, img src=).Affected if Any attachment filename contains raw HTML or JavaScript code that would execute when the KB article is viewed.
A user is affected if their Lifford Portal version is below 7.4.3.102 (or DXP matches 7.3/7.4/2023.q3.x) AND the Knowledge Base module is active with attachments containing unsanitized filenames.
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 · scoped7.37.4.3.102
Apply Liferays security patch for CVE-2025-62255; implement input validation and output encoding on attachment filenames in the KB article functionality.
Liferay Portal 7.4.3.102; Liferay DXP 2023.Q3.6; Liferay DXP 7.4 update 93
- 1. Identify the currently installed Liferay product (Portal or DXP) and its exact version
- 2. For Liferay Portal users: Upgrade to version 7.4.3.102 or later
- 3. For Liferay DXP 2023.Q3.x users: Upgrade to version 2023.Q3.6 or later
- 4. For Liferay DXP 7.4 users: Upgrade to update 93 or later
- 5. Verify the upgrade by checking the Lifaxer Knowledge Base article edit page functionality
- 6. Confirm the attachment filename field now properly sanitizes input
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-62255 — 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-2025-62255 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