CVE-2018-5006
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 · uneditedAdobe Experience Manager versions 6.4 and earlier have a Server-Side Request Forgery vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to sensitive information disclosure.
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 confidenceAdobe Experience Manager versions 6.4 and earlier contain a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that allows attackers to coerce the server into making arbitrary requests to internal or external resources. This can enable disclosure of sensitive information such as internal services, cloud metadata, or network infrastructure details.
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<= 6.4.0CVSS 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:3.0/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.
-
Determine installed AEM versionAccess the AEM About page (Navigate to Help > About Adobe Experience Manager) or query the /system/console/bundles.json endpoint to retrieve the bundle version informationAffected if The installed version is 6.4.0 or any earlier version (6.3.x, 6.2.x, 6.1.x, 6.0.x, etc.)
-
Identify endpoints accepting user-supplied URLsReview the AEM web application for servlet or endpoint configurations that accept URL parameters and perform server-side HTTP requests. Check configuration files under /apps and /libs for HTTP client implementationsAffected if The environment contains code or configurations that accept URLs from user input and make outbound requests without strict validation
-
Audit request validation logicExamine the input validation logic for URL parameters in custom applications or AEM components that perform HTTP requests. Look for absence of URL allowlist enforcement or proper scheme restrictionsAffected if URL input fields lack allowlist-based validation or permit arbitrary URL schemes (http, https, file, etc.) without restriction
-
Review network exposureInspect the server's outbound firewall rules and AEM's HTTP proxy configuration in the OSGi Web Console (System > Console > OSGi > Configuration for org.apache.http.proxy)Affected if The server has unrestricted outbound network access and can reach internal infrastructure or metadata endpoints
You are affected if your AEM version is 6.4.0 or earlier AND your environment contains functionality that processes user-supplied URLs without strict allowlist validation.
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.
From vendor dataRestrict outgoing network connections from the AEM server, implement strict allowlists for permitted destinations, validate all user-supplied URLs before making server-side requests, and apply network segmentation to limit exposure of internal resources.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-5006 — 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-2018-5006 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