CVE-2024-43718
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 6.5.21 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 6.5.21 and earlier contain a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in form fields. Attackers can inject malicious JavaScript payloads into form inputs that persist on the server. When legitimate users view pages containing these compromised form fields, the malicious scripts execute in their browsers, potentially stealing session cookies, credentials, 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< 6.5.22.0< 2024.11.0CVSS 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 versionAccess the AEM Web Console (help/about.jsp) or check the version.properties file in the crx-quickstart folder. Compare the version number against the affected ranges: 6.5.x versions below 6.5.22.0, or release versions below 2024.11.0.Affected if The installed version is less than 6.5.22.0 (for 6.5.x branches) or less than 2024.11.0 (for quarterly releases).
-
Identify custom form components in the repositoryNavigate to /apps in CRXDE Lite or use the Package Manager to list content packages. Look for custom form components under /apps that extend foundation components or use form field widgets (textfield, textarea, dropdown, etc.).Affected if Custom form components exist in /apps that accept user input without proper validation or encoding.
-
Review form field input validation settingsIn CRXDE Lite, examine the JSP or HTL files for form components in your project. Check if the form fields implement server-side input validation (using CoralUI validators, regex patterns, or custom validation logic) and output encoding before rendering stored values.Affected if Form field components render user-submitted content without validation or output encoding, allowing script injection.
-
Inspect stored form data for malicious payloadsQuery the JCR repository using CRXDE Lite or a tool like the AEM Groovy Console. Search /content for nodes containing form submission data. Look for suspicious patterns like <script>, javascript:, onload=, onerror=, or other XSS vectors in text fields.Affected if Form submission data in the repository contains unsanitized HTML or script tags.
You are affected if your AEM version is below 6.5.22.0 or 2024.11.0 AND you have custom form components that store user input without validation or 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 · scoped6.5.22.02024.11.0
Apply available AEM security patches to address this vulnerability. Until patched, implement strict input validation and output encoding on all form fields, and consider Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to mitigate XSS execution.
AEM 6.5.x → 6.5.22.0 or later; AEM Cloud → 2024.11.0 or later
- 1. Identify the current Adobe Experience Manager version running in your environment
- 2. For AEM 6.5.x on-prem installations: Plan upgrade to version 6.5.22.0 or later
- 3. For AEM Cloud/Adobe Managed Services: Verify migration to 2024.11.0 or later release
- 4. Review the Adobe security bulletin (helpx.adobe.com) for complete fixed version details
- 5. Create a full backup of the AEM repository (content, assets, configurations) before upgrading
- 6. Test the upgrade in a non-production/staging environment first
- 7. Schedule a maintenance window for the production upgrade
- 8. Perform the upgrade following Adobe's official upgrade documentation
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-2024-43718 — 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-2024-43718 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