CVE-2024-36158
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. The malicious payload persists in the system and executes in victims' browsers when they access pages containing the compromised 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< 6.5.21< 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 > Tools > Operations > Diagnosis > Version Info, or access /system/console/configMgr and check the com.day.cq.commons.impl.VersionInfoImpl bundle. Compare the version number against 6.5.21 and 2024.5.Affected if The installed version is below 6.5.21 or below 2024.5.
-
Identify form components in useReview AEM page content fragments, adaptive forms, and core form components (core form, form container, text field, number field, date picker) by navigating to /editor.html and inspecting page structure or checking /apps for form component nodes.Affected if Form components that accept user input are present and actively used on published pages.
-
Inspect form field source for output encodingCheck the HTL/Sightly template for form components at /apps/core/wcm/components/form/... or custom form component HTL files. Look for context-aware encoding such as ${formField @ context='html'} or ${variable @ context='text'} in the template markup.Affected if Form field values are rendered using unencoded syntax like ${formField} without explicit context='html' or context='text' protection.
-
Search for malicious payloads in form dataQuery the JCR repository via AEM CRX/DE Lite at /crx/de or use Query Builder API to search for stored XSS patterns in form content nodes: path=/content, type=nt:unstructured, and look for common XSS vectors like <script>, <img onerror=, javascript:, or event handlers in form field values.Affected if Form submission data contains persisted JavaScript payloads or HTML tags in field values.
-
Verify Content Security Policy headersCheck the dispatcher configuration (.any or .conf files) or AEM HTML Library Manager configuration for CSP header settings. Access /system/console/configMgr and search for the Adobe Granite CSRF Filter or custom CSP filter configurations.Affected if No CSP headers are configured, or CSP headers allow unsafe-inline/unsafe-eval, providing no defense-in-depth against XSS execution.
Your environment is affected if AEM version is below 6.5.21 or below 2024.5 AND form fields exist that accept user input without proper output encoding context.
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 to a patched AEM version if available; otherwise implement proper input validation and output encoding on vulnerable form fields, and consider Content Security Policy headers to mitigate XSS execution.
Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.21 or later, or AEM as a Cloud Service 2024.5 or later
- 1. Identify the current Adobe Experience Manager version in use
- 2. If running AEM 6.5.x branch, upgrade to version 6.5.21 or later
- 3. If running AEM as a Cloud Service, upgrade to version 2024.5 or later
- 4. After upgrade, verify that the XSS vulnerability is resolved by testing form fields for malicious script injection
- 5. Validate that existing custom code and integrations function correctly post-upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 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 $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-36158 — 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-2024-36158 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