CVE-2021-28628
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 Cloud Service offering, as well as versions 6.5.8.0 (and below) is affected by a Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability that could be abused by an attacker to inject malicious scripts into vulnerable form fields. Malicious JavaScript may be executed in a victim’s browser when they browse to the page containing the vulnerable field.
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 confidenceAdobe Experience Manager versions 6.5.8.0 and below and Cloud Service contain a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in form fields. Attackers can inject malicious JavaScript payloads into form inputs that execute when other users browse pages containing the compromised fields.
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<= 6.5.8.0CVSS 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
- 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.
-
Determine installed AEM versionAccess the AEM Welcome page or check the version file in crx-quickstart/conf/org.apache.felix.framework.properties, or run: curl -s https://<host>:4502/libs/granite/core/content/login.html 2>/dev/null | grep -o 'version=[0-9.]*'Affected if The installed version is 6.5.8.0 or lower (any version up to and including 6.5.8.0)
-
Identify custom form components in useReview the /apps folder for custom form field components under /apps/<your-project>/components, or search the repository for nodes containing 'form' and 'field' in component paths using CRXDE Lite or the Query toolAffected if Custom form components exist that may not have proper input validation implemented
-
Verify form field input validationInspect the Java or HTL code of custom form components for server-side validation logic. Check if form field models implement jakarta.servlet.jsp.tagext.BodyTagSupport or similar, and review the getValue() methods for encoding or validationAffected if Form field components lack server-side input validation or output encoding on submitted values
-
Check for stored XSS in form dataQuery the AEM repository using CRXDE Lite Query tool or the Groovy console to find form content: select * from nt:base where jcr:path like '/content/%' and contains(*, '<script') or search for common XSS patterns in form input nodesAffected if Form content nodes contain unsanitized HTML or script tags in field values
-
Review dispatcher or WAF logs for XSS injection attemptsExamine access logs and error logs in /var/log/ or the dispatcher logs for patterns like <script, javascript:, onerror=, onload= in form-related POST requests to endpoints like /bin/cq/form/ or content pathsAffected if Logs show injection attempts or malicious payloads in form submission parameters
Your AEM instance is affected if it runs version 6.5.8.0 or lower AND uses custom form components without proper input validation, allowing stored XSS payloads to persist in form field data.
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 · scopedImplement proper input validation and output encoding on all form fields, and consider deploying a Content Security Policy (CSP) to mitigate XSS execution.
AEM 6.5.9.0 or later
- 1. Identify current Adobe Experience Manager version by checking the product console or version info
- 2. Plan upgrade during a maintenance window to minimize business impact
- 3. Review Adobe Experience Manager 6.5 release notes for upgrade requirements and prerequisites
- 4. Perform a full backup of the AEM instance including repository, database, and configuration files
- 5. Test the upgrade in a non-production environment first
- 6. Execute the upgrade to version 6.5.9.0 or later
- 7. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the AEM version in the system console
- 8. Validate that all custom applications and integrations function correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $11,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-28628 — 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-2021-28628 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