CVE-2024-36142
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 and persistently stored. When users view pages containing these compromised form fields, the injected script executes in their browsers.
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 installed AEM versionAccess the AEM Web Console (usually at /system/console/config) or check the file 'crx-quickstart/package.properties' for the version property. Also can use the AEM SDK or run 'aem -version' if available.Affected if The installed version is earlier than 6.5.21 or earlier than the 2024.5 release (e.g., 6.5.0 through 6.5.20, or any 2024.x version before 2024.5).
-
Identify form components accepting user inputReview the AEM instance for custom or extended form components (such as text fields, textareas, or form containers) in the Touch UI or Classic UI at /libs or /apps paths. Use CRX/DE to locate components under /apps that inherit from core form components or custom form implementations.Affected if Custom or extended form components exist that do not implement server-side input validation or allow raw HTML/JavaScript storage.
-
Inspect form data in the repository for suspicious contentUse CRX/DE Lite (at /crx/de) or query the repository via JCR SQL2 to search for stored form data. Run a query like: SELECT * FROM nt:base WHERE jcr:path LIKE '/content/%' AND CONTAINS(*, '<script>') to look for persisted script tags in form field content.Affected if Any stored form entries contain unsanitized HTML tags such as <script>, <img onerror>, or javascript: URIs.
-
Verify output encoding on form field renderingInspect the HTL or JSP templates for form components under /apps. Look for the use of context-aware escaping functions such as ${formField @ context='html'} in HTL or equivalent context-specific encoding in JSP (e.g., XSSAPI.encodeForHTML).Affected if Form field values are rendered without proper context-aware encoding, or the encoding is set to 'unsafe' or disabled.
You are affected if your AEM version is below 6.5.21 or below 2024.5 AND your form fields allow unsanitized input that can be stored and rendered without output encoding.
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 implement input validation and output encoding on vulnerable form fields to prevent script injection.
AEM 6.5.21 or later; AEM 2024.5 or later
- 1. Back up your current AEM instance and all content repositories before proceeding
- 2. Review Adobe's release notes for the target version to understand any migration requirements
- 3. Download Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.21 (for 6.5.x line) or 2024.5 (for cloud/continuous release track) from the Adobe Software Distribution portal
- 4. Install the updated AEM version following Adobe's standard installation documentation
- 5. Verify that all custom applications and integrations function correctly after upgrade
- 6. Test form fields that previously contained the XSS vulnerability to confirm the fix is effective
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-2024-36142 — 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-2024-36142 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