CVE-2024-36168
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 in the system. When victims browse to pages containing these compromised fields, the malicious script executes in their browsers, potentially stealing session cookies, credentials, or performing actions on behalf of the user.
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 Adobe Experience Manager versionAccess the AEM Web Console (Go to /system/console/about) or locate the version.properties file in the crx-quickstart directory. The version is displayed as a number like 6.5.20, 6.5.21, 2024.4, or 2024.5.Affected if The installed version is 6.5.20 or earlier, or between 6.5.21 and 2024.4 (if using the 2024.x release track). Versions 6.5.21 and 2024.5 and later are not affected.
-
Identify custom or editable form fields in the systemReview AEM component definitions under /apps or /libs that contain form input components (text fields, textarea, email, number inputs). Check for any form-based workflows or user-generated content areas.Affected if Form fields exist that accept user input without explicit output encoding configured in the component's HTL or JSP rendering logic.
-
Inspect form data storage in the repositoryUsing CRXDE Lite (accessible at /crx/de), navigate to content nodes where form submissions are stored (commonly under /content or custom content structures). Examine nodes for any script tags or JavaScript code within text property values.Affected if Repository nodes contain unsanitized HTML or script tags embedded in form field data, indicating exploitation has occurred.
-
Review AEM audit and request logs for XSS patternsExamine audit.log or request.log files in the crx-quickstart/logs directory. Search for form submission endpoints (POST requests) containing common XSS patterns like <script, javascript:, onerror=, or onload=.Affected if Logs contain POST submissions to form endpoints with XSS payload patterns in the parameter values.
Your environment is affected if the installed AEM version is below 6.5.21 (or below 2024.5 for the 2024 release track) AND the system hosts form fields that accept user input 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
Apply the vendor patch (AEM 6.5.21 or later). Until patched, implement output encoding for all form field outputs and consider adding WAF rules to detect and block XSS payloads in form submissions.
AEM 6.5.21 or AEM 2024.5 (depending on current release line)
- 1. Identify current Adobe Experience Manager version by checking the AEM welcome page or system console
- 2. Determine which release line you are on (6.5.x branch or 2024.x releases)
- 3. For AEM 6.5.x users: Plan upgrade to version 6.5.21 or later
- 4. For AEM 2024.x users: Plan upgrade to version 2024.5 or later
- 5. Perform the upgrade in a non-production/staging environment first
- 6. Test critical workflows and forms to ensure functionality is maintained after upgrade
- 7. After successful testing in staging, schedule production upgrade
- 8. Verify the XSS vulnerability is remediated by attempting to inject script in the previously vulnerable form fields
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 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 $7,680.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-36168 — 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-2024-36168 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