CVE-2024-43737
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. Attackers can inject malicious JavaScript into vulnerable form fields, which persists in the system. When legitimate users browse to pages containing these compromised fields, the malicious script executes in their browsers, potentially allowing session hijacking, data theft, or unauthorized actions.
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.
-
Identify installed AEM versionAccess the AEM Web Console (Help > About Adobe Experience Manager) or check the version.properties file in the crx-quickstart folder. Compare the version number against the affected ranges: versions before 6.5.22.0 or before 2024.11.0.Affected if The installed version is below 6.5.22.0 or below 2024.11.0
-
Locate form components accepting user inputReview the AEM Forms implementation and identify adaptive form components, core form fields, or custom form containers that accept user-submitted data. Check /libs/fd/af/components and /apps for form field component definitions.Affected if Custom or core form fields that allow unvalidated user input are present in the environment
-
Inspect form field validation configurationOpen the form field component dialogs in AEM Forms author instance and examine the Validation Properties tab. Check whether input validation and constraints are properly configured for form fields.Affected if Form fields lack input validation constraints or allow HTML/script input without sanitization
-
Review stored form data for malicious payloadsUse CRXDE Lite or the AEM Forms database to query submitted form data. Look for common XSS patterns such as <script>, javascript:, onerror=, onload=, and other HTML event handlers in form field values.Affected if Stored form data contains script tags, javascript: URIs, or HTML event handler attributes in form field values
-
Check for recent unauthorized form submissionsReview AEM Forms submission logs and audit logs for unusual form submissions that may contain XSS payloads. Filter for submissions containing angle brackets or script-related keywords.Affected if Form submission logs show submissions with XSS payload patterns in field data
A user is affected if their AEM version is below 6.5.22.0 or below 2024.11.0 AND they have form fields that accept user input without proper validation or 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 · scoped6.5.22.02024.11.0
Apply the official Adobe security patch by upgrading Adobe Experience Manager to version 6.5.22 or later. Additionally, implement input validation and output encoding on form fields as a defense-in-depth measure until the patch can be applied.
Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.22.0 or later, or Adobe Experience Manager 2024.11.0 or later
- 1. Back up the current AEM instance including repository, database, and configuration files.
- 2. Review the Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.22.0 or 2024.11.0 release notes for any migration requirements or known issues.
- 3. Stop the AEM instance and all related services.
- 4. Run the upgrade following Adobe's official upgrade documentation for your current version.
- 5. After upgrade, verify all custom code and third-party integrations are functional.
- 6. Test the form fields that were previously vulnerable to confirm the XSS fix is applied.
- 7. Restart the AEM instance and validate all authoring and publishing workflows.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-43737 — 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-2024-43737 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