CVE-2024-26088
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 injected scripts execute in their browsers, enabling session hijacking, credential theft, or other client-side attacks.
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.
-
Determine installed AEM versionAccess the AEM Web Console (go to /system/console/configMgr) or check the version from the AEM Welcome page at /welcome.html. The version number is displayed on the welcome screen or in the 'com.adobe.cq.product' manifest via /system/console/status/productinfo.Affected if The installed version is earlier than 6.5.21 or earlier than the 2024.5 release.
-
Identify AEM Forms usageNavigate to /aem/forms.html or check for the presence of adaptive forms functionality at /libs/fd/af/console. Look for forms author instances in the AEM Forms console.Affected if AEM Forms or adaptive forms are enabled and accessible, providing the attack surface for this XSS.
-
Check for custom form componentsReview the /apps folder in CRXDE Lite (accessible at /crx/de) for custom form field components under /apps that may handle user input without proper encoding. Look for components inheriting from foundation/components/form or coralui components.Affected if Custom form components that lack output encoding on form field submissions are present in the system.
-
Inspect form field configurationsExamine form field component configurations in the repository at /apps or /libs under form-related paths. Check Edit or Design dialog XML configurations (.xml files) for how user input is handled and whether any custom validation scripts are present.Affected if Form fields are configured with custom scripts or allow raw HTML/script input without sanitization.
-
Review content fragments or experience fragments used in formsSearch the repository using Query Builder (at /libs/cq/search/content/querydebugger) or CRXDE for form-related content containing potential script tags. Look for nodes under /content that contain form data or user-generated content.Affected if User-generated content containing form fields with injected script elements exists in the repository.
Your environment is affected if AEM version is below 6.5.21 or below 2024.5 AND the system uses AEM Forms, adaptive forms, or any custom form components that accept user input.
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
Apply Adobe's official patch by upgrading to AEM version 6.5.21 or later. Additionally, implement output encoding and input validation on form fields as a defense-in-depth measure until the patch is deployed.
Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.21 or later (for 6.5.x line), or 2024.5 or later (for newer release line)
- 1. Back up the current AEM instance including repository, configurations, and custom code
- 2. Review Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.21 release notes (or 2024.5 for newer release line) for any breaking changes or migration requirements
- 3. Test the upgrade in a non-production/staging environment first
- 4. Apply the upgrade to AEM 6.5.21 or later (or 2024.5 or later for the newer release line)
- 5. Verify the upgrade was successful and custom integrations still function properly
- 6. Test that the stored XSS vulnerability is no longer present in form fields
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-26088 — 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-2024-26088 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