CVE-2024-26075
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 6.5.20 and earlier are affected by a stored 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 6.5.20 and earlier contain a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability where malicious JavaScript can be injected into form fields. When users view pages containing these compromised fields, the attacker's script executes in their browser, potentially enabling session hijacking, data theft, or defacement.
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< 6.5.21< 2024.5CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Check the installed Adobe Experience Manager versionAccess the AEM Welcome page or check the version.properties file in the crx-quickstart folder. The version is typically displayed on the Welcome page under 'Adobe Experience Manager' or can be retrieved via the system console (/system/console/bundles).Affected if The installed version is below 6.5.21 or below 2024.5, placing it within the vulnerable range.
-
Identify if AEM Forms module is in useCheck if the AEM Forms add-on package is installed by navigating to /libs/fd/fm/content/metadata.html or by reviewing installed packages in the Package Manager (/crx/packmgr).Affected if The Forms module is installed and form creation/editing capabilities are available, indicating the vulnerable attack surface exists.
-
Review form field configurations for input validation settingsNavigate to the form definition in CRX/DE (under /content/forms/af or /apps) and inspect individual form field components. Check each field's properties for 'Validation Pattern' or 'Input Validation' settings.Affected if Form fields lack input validation patterns or have validation disabled, meaning they accept arbitrary input including script tags.
-
Examine stored form data for malicious script contentQuery the AEM repository (via CRXDE or the Query Builder API) for form submission data stored under /content/forms/submissions or within AEM Forms data stores. Search for entries containing script tags, javascript:, or on* event handlers.Affected if Form submission records contain unsanitized script tags or JavaScript event handlers in field values, indicating active exploitation.
-
Check form models and schemas for encoding configurationsReview the form model JSON or XSD files used by Adaptive Forms. Look for field configurations under 'properties' to verify if output encoding is enabled.Affected if Form field properties do not specify 'escape' or 'encode' settings, leaving output unencoded.
Your environment is affected if the AEM version is below 6.5.21 (or below 2024.5) AND Forms with user-submitted fields exist that lack input validation and output encoding protections.
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 · scoped6.5.212024.5
Upgrade Adobe Experience Manager to a version newer than 6.5.20, or apply the relevant security patch. Additionally, implement input validation and output encoding on all form fields to prevent XSS.
AEM 6.5.21+ or AEM 2024.5+ (depending on your release track)
- 1. Identify your current Adobe Experience Manager version by checking the AEM welcome page or system console
- 2. If running AEM 6.5.x branch: Upgrade to version 6.5.21 or later
- 3. If running the continuous release (2024.x): Upgrade to version 2024.5 or later
- 4. After upgrade, verify the AEM instance starts successfully
- 5. Test the affected form fields to confirm the XSS vulnerability is remediated
- 6. Clear AEM cache and republished content if necessary
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-2024-26075 — 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-2024-26075 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