CVE-2024-36165
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 confidenceStored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Adobe Experience Manager versions 6.5.20 and earlier allows attackers to inject malicious JavaScript into form fields. When victims browse to pages containing these compromised fields, the malicious script executes in their browsers, potentially enabling session hijacking, credential theft, or defacement.
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.
-
Identify installed AEM versionAccess the AEM Web Console (typically at /system/console/configMgr) or check the product.info.json endpoint (at /libs/granite/core/content/productinfo.json) to retrieve the current AEM version numberAffected if The displayed version is earlier than 6.5.21 or earlier than the 2024.5 release (for cloud/2024 versions)
-
Locate Adaptive Forms or Custom Form componentsNavigate to the AEM Forms UI at /aem/forms.html or search the CRXDE Lite repository (at /crx/de) under /apps for form-related content fragments, adaptive form configurations, or custom form field componentsAffected if Custom or Adaptive Forms are present in the /apps or /content directories with user-submitted data stored as field values
-
Inspect form field configurations for unsanitized inputIn CRXDE Lite, examine the XML node structure under /content/forms/af or custom form field nodes in /apps, looking at field value properties for any suspicious script tags, javascript: prefixes, or HTML event handlers (onclick, onerror, etc.)Affected if Any form field configuration nodes contain raw script tags, event handlers, or potentially malicious JavaScript in their value or placeholder properties
-
Review recent form submission activityAccess the AEM Forms workflow inbox at /aem/inbox or query the Form Data Model service to review recent form submissions for patterns of stored script content in text fieldsAffected if Form submissions contain unescaped HTML or script tags in text input fields
A user is affected if their AEM installation shows a version below 6.5.21 or below 2024.5 AND they have Adaptive Forms or custom form components with user-generated content accessible in the repository.
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 version 6.5.21 or later to obtain the vendor patch. Additionally, implement input validation and output encoding on form fields as a defense-in-depth measure until the upgrade is completed.
AEM 6.5.21 or AEM 2024.5 (whichever release line applies)
- Backup your Adobe Experience Manager instance and all content repositories before proceeding
- Review the official Adobe Experience Manager upgrade documentation for your current version
- Test the upgrade in a non-production environment first
- Upgrade AEM to version 6.5.21 or later for the 6.5.x release line, or to version 2024.5 or later for the newer release line
- After upgrade, verify that the stored XSS vulnerability is resolved by testing form field inputs with typical XSS payloads
- Confirm normal AEM functionality is working as expected in the upgraded environment
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation20.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $12,864.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-36165 — 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-2024-36165 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