CVE-2024-36164
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 victims browse to pages containing these compromised fields, the malicious 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.
-
Determine installed AEM versionAccess the AEM System Console at /system/console/status-Bundle or check the version in the AEM Welcome page under 'Version'. Alternatively, inspect the 'version.properties' file in the crx-quickstart folder.Affected if The installed version is 6.5.20 or earlier, or the version is earlier than 2024.5 for the newer release line.
-
Identify custom form components in useReview your AEM content repository (via CRXDE Lite at /crx/de) or component inventory to identify custom components that contain form input fields such as text fields, textareas, or form containers.Affected if Custom form components that accept user input are present in your published content.
-
Inspect form field content for malicious scriptsUse CRXDE Lite or query the repository (via Query Builder) to search content nodes under /content for common XSS payloads like '<script>', 'javascript:', or event handlers such as 'onerror', 'onload' within form field values.Affected if Any form field content nodes contain unsanitized script tags or event handler attributes.
-
Verify output encoding on custom componentsOpen the HTL or JSP scripts of custom form components in /apps and inspect how user-provided values are rendered using the context-aware escaping functions (for example, data-sly-text with HTL's ${properties.value @ context='html'} or equivalent encoding).Affected if Custom components use raw output or non-contextual encoding (for example, omitting @ context='html' or using .escapeHtml()) when rendering form field values.
-
Review recent form submissions or user-generated contentQuery the repository for content created or modified recently, particularly under pages containing form components, and manually inspect the raw data for suspicious JavaScript patterns.Affected if Form submissions or user-generated content contain encoded or plain XSS payloads that were not sanitized upon storage.
Your environment is affected if you are running AEM version 6.5.20 or earlier (or versions before 2024.5) and you have custom form components that accept user input without proper output encoding, as the injected malicious scripts would persist and execute when other users browse the affected pages.
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 Adobe Experience Manager to version 6.5.21 or later to obtain the security patch. Additionally, review and sanitize form inputs and implement output encoding on custom AEM components to prevent XSS.
AEM 6.5.21 (or AEM as a Cloud Service 2024.5.0)
- Upgrade Adobe Experience Manager from 6.5.20 or earlier to version 6.5.21 or later
- For AEM as a Cloud Service customers, upgrade to version 2024.5.0 or later
- After upgrading, verify that the XSS protection filters are functioning correctly by testing form field inputs with script tags
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-36164 — 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-2024-36164 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