Miggo Logo

CVE-2025-62242: Liferay Account Admin Web vulnerable to Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

N/A

CVSS Score

Basic Information

EPSS Score
-
Published
10/13/2025
Updated
10/13/2025
KEV Status
No
Technology
TechnologyJava

Technical Details

CVSS Vector
-
Package NameEcosystemVulnerable VersionsFirst Patched Version
com.liferay:com.liferay.change.tracking.webmaven< 2.0.1202.0.120

Vulnerability Intelligence
Miggo AIMiggo AI

Miggo AIRoot Cause Analysis

The analysis of the provided patches reveals vulnerabilities within the com.liferay.change.tracking.web module, specifically in the UpdateCTCommentMVCResourceCommand.doServeResource method. The patches fix both a CSRF vulnerability and an improper access control issue. It is important to note that the provided CVE description refers to an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerability in a different module (com.liferay.account.admin.web) and is associated with a different internal issue tracker ID (LPE-17932 vs. LPD-15347 in the commits). Therefore, the identified vulnerable function and the reasoning are based strictly on the provided commit data, which appears to be for a different vulnerability than the one described in the CVE title and description. The root cause of the vulnerability fixed by the patches is a combination of missing CSRF protection and inadequate permission checks, allowing unauthorized modification of data.

Vulnerable functions

com.liferay.change.tracking.web.internal.portlet.action.UpdateCTCommentMVCResourceCommand.doServeResource
modules/apps/change-tracking/change-tracking-web/src/main/java/com/liferay/change/tracking/web/internal/portlet/action/UpdateCTCommentMVCResourceCommand.java
The `doServeResource` method had two vulnerabilities. First, it was susceptible to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) because it did not verify the HTTP method, allowing state-changing operations (like adding or updating comments) to be triggered by a simple GET request. Second, it had an insufficient permission check, only verifying if a user had `VIEW` permissions before allowing them to modify comment data. This could lead to an escalation of privileges where a user with read-only access could perform write operations.

WAF Protection Rules

WAF Rule

Ins**ur* *ir**t O*j**t R***r*n** (I*OR) vuln*r**ility wit* ***ount ***r*ss*s in Li**r*y Port*l *.*.*.* t*rou** *.*.*.***, *n* Li**r*y *XP ****.Q*.* t*rou** ****.Q*.*, ****.Q*.* t*rou** ****.Q*.*, *n* *.* ** t*rou** up**t* ** *llows r*mot* *ut**nti**t

Reasoning

T** *n*lysis o* t** provi*** p*t***s r*v**ls vuln*r**iliti*s wit*in t** `*om.li**r*y.***n**.tr**kin*.w**` mo*ul*, sp**i*i**lly in t** `Up**t**T*omm*ntMV*R*sour***omm*n*.*oS*rv*R*sour**` m*t*o*. T** p*t***s *ix *ot* * *SR* vuln*r**ility *n* *n improp*