CVE-2024-26125
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 6.5.19 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 · moderate confidenceStored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Adobe Experience Manager versions 6.5.19 and earlier allows attackers to inject malicious JavaScript into vulnerable form fields. The malicious payload persists in the system and executes in victims' browsers when they navigate to pages containing the affected form 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< 6.5.20.0< 2024.3.0CVSS 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
- 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.
-
Identify the installed AEM versionAccess the AEM Web Console (../system/console/configMgr) or check the version via the AEM Welcome page at /libs/granite/ui/content/shell.html, or run: curl -s -u admin:password http://localhost:4502/crx/packmgr/service.jsp?cmd=ls | grep versionAffected if The version shown is 6.5.19 or earlier, or falls between 6.5.20.0 and 2024.2.x (i.e., less than 6.5.20.0 or less than 2024.3.0)
-
Determine if AEM Forms or Adaptive Forms are enabledNavigate to /aem/forms.html in the AEM author instance, or check if the com.adobe.aemds.forms bundle is active in the OSGi Console at /system/console/bundlesAffected if AEM Forms components, Adaptive Forms, or Form containers are installed and active on the system
-
Inspect form models and field definitions for missing input validationReview form schemas in CRX/DE at /conf/global/settings/form/models or /content/forms/af, checking that each form field has a dataType or pattern constraint definedAffected if Form fields exist without validation patterns, dataType constraints, or output encoding rules configured
-
Search for existing malicious scripts in form data repositoriesQuery the AEM repository using CRXDE Lite (crx/de) or a JCR SQL2 query to search stored form submissions: SELECT * FROM nt:base WHERE jcr:path LIKE '/content/forms/%' AND CONTAINS(*, '<script') OR CONTAINS(*, 'javascript:')Affected if Any form submission or form field content contains unsanitized script tags, event handlers, or javascript: URIs
A user is affected if their AEM version is below 6.5.20.0 or below 2024.3.0 AND the system has AEM Forms with unvalidated form fields that could contain persisted XSS payloads.
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 · scoped6.5.20.02024.3.0
Update to Adobe Experience Manager version 6.5.20 or later to obtain the security patch. Alternatively, implement proper input validation and output encoding on the vulnerable form fields to neutralize malicious script injection.
AEM 6.5.x: upgrade to 6.5.20.0 or later; AEM Cloud: upgrade to 2024.3.0 or later
- 1. Back up the current Adobe Experience Manager instance and verify backup integrity before proceeding
- 2. Review Adobe Experience Manager release notes for versions 6.5.20.0 and 2024.3.0 to understand changes and potential impacts
- 3. For AEM 6.5.x installations: Upgrade to version 6.5.20.0 or later by applying the latest Service Pack or Cumulative Fix Pack from Adobe's package distribution
- 4. For AEM as a Cloud Service: Upgrade to version 2024.3.0 or later through the Cloud Manager or by triggering a new deployment
- 5. After upgrade, verify the XSS vulnerability is resolved by testing the previously vulnerable form fields
- 6. Validate that custom code or integrations are still functioning correctly post-upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-26125 — 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-2024-26125 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