CVE-2024-52823
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 DOM-based Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability that could be exploited by an attacker to execute arbitrary code in the context of the victim's browser session. By manipulating a DOM element through a crafted URL or user input, the attacker can inject malicious scripts that run when the page is rendered. This type of attack requires user interaction, as the victim would need to visit a malicious link or input data into a compromised form.
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 · moderate confidenceThis is a DOM-based Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Adobe Experience Manager versions 6.5.21 and earlier. The vulnerability allows attackers to inject malicious scripts into DOM elements through crafted URLs or user input, which then execute when the page renders in the victim's browser session.
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 About page (typically at /libs/cq/core/content/info.html or via the Help menu > About Adobe Experience Manager), or query the version via the OSGi web console at /system/console/bundles and locate the com.day.commonsight bundle. Compare the displayed version against 6.5.22.0 and 2024.11.0.Affected if The displayed version is below 6.5.22.0 or below 2024.11.0 (for the newer release track)
-
Identify exposed input handlersReview the AEM instance for endpoints or components that accept user-supplied input and render it into the HTML/DOM without encoding. Common paths include custom components, search filters, or URL parameter handlers. Check the HTML source of pages that accept URL parameters to see if parameter values are reflected directly into the DOM.Affected if Any AEM component, endpoint, or custom code reflects URL parameters or form input into the page DOM without proper output encoding
-
Audit Content Security Policy configurationNavigate to the Apache Sling main servlet configuration or the HTML Client Library manager settings (typically at /libs/granite/ui/components/coral/foundation/fragmentor or via the OSGi config for org.apache.sling.engine.impl.SlingMainServlet). Inspect the CSP header configuration to determine if restrictive policies are in place.Affected if No CSP headers are configured, or the CSP allows inline scripts (unsafe-inline), meaning injected scripts can execute regardless of the underlying vulnerability
You are affected if your AEM version is below 6.5.22.0 (or below 2024.11.0 for the newer release track) AND user-controlled input can be reflected into the DOM without encoding on your deployed components or 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 · scoped6.5.22.02024.11.0
Apply the vendor patch (upgrade to AEM 6.5.22 or later), implement Content Security Policy (CSP) headers, and ensure all user input is properly validated and output-encoded before being reflected in the DOM.
AEM 6.5.22.0 (on-premise) or AEM as a Cloud Service 2024.11.0
- For Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.x on-premise: Upgrade to version 6.5.22.0 or later
- For Adobe Experience Manager as a Cloud Service: Upgrade to version 2024.11.0 or later
- After upgrading, verify that the DOM-based XSS vulnerability is resolved by testing with the previously vulnerable URL patterns
- Ensure custom code and third-party integrations are tested post-upgrade to confirm compatibility
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-52823 — 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-2024-52823 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