CVE-2024-36149
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. Attackers can inject malicious JavaScript into form fields, which persists on the server. When legitimate users browse to pages containing these compromised fields, the malicious script executes in their browsers, potentially stealing session cookies or performing actions on behalf of the victim.
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 versionNavigate to AEM Welcome page or check the product version via the system information console (typically at /system/console/config or by reviewing the manifest file in the crx-quickstart folder)Affected if The version is 6.5.20 or earlier, or falls below 2024.5 (for newer release trains)
-
Identify form endpoints accepting user inputReview the application's form components and custom form submissions by examining the /apps and /libs directories for form field definitions, or search for JSP/sightly files handling form submissionsAffected if Forms that accept user input without server-side validation are present and accessible to unauthenticated or low-privileged users
-
Inspect stored form data for malicious scriptsQuery the JCR (Java Content Repository) using CRXDE Lite or a tool like curl with JMESPath to examine stored form field values in the repository (look under /content or /var for form submission nodes)Affected if Any form field entries contain script tags, javascript: URIs, or event handler attributes (onerror, onload, onclick, etc.) embedded in the stored values
-
Check form field output for unencoded renderingReview the Sightly/JSP templates that render form values to verify if output encoding is applied (look for ${formField} vs ${formField @ context='html' or @ context='attribute'} in Sightly templates)Affected if Form values are rendered without proper context-aware encoding (html, attribute, or element context)
-
Review Content Security Policy headersInspect HTTP responses from the AEM instance using browser developer tools or curl to check for CSP headers, or review the Apache Sling dispatcher configurationAffected if No CSP headers are configured or CSP is too permissive (allows 'unsafe-inline' or 'unsafe-eval'), which would allow executed scripts to perform actions
The environment is affected if the AEM version is below 6.5.21 or 2024.5, and form fields that accept user input are present without proper 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
Update AEM to version 6.5.21 or later to obtain the vendor patch. Additionally, implement input validation and output encoding on form fields, and consider applying Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to mitigate XSS execution.
Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.21 or 2024.5 (depending on release train)
- 1. Identify the current Adobe Experience Manager version by checking /system/console/bundles or the AEM welcome page
- 2. For AEM 6.5.x line: Plan upgrade to version 6.5.21 or later
- 3. For AEM 2024.x line: Plan upgrade to version 2024.5 or later
- 4. Review Adobe's release notes for the target version to understand changes
- 5. Create a backup of the current AEM instance and content repository
- 6. Test the upgrade in a staging environment before production deployment
- 7. Deploy the upgraded version to production
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-36149 — 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-2024-36149 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