CVE-2024-52835
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 (persistent) Cross-Site Scripting vulnerability. Attackers can inject malicious JavaScript into form fields, which gets stored in the system. When other users view pages containing these compromised form fields, the malicious script executes in their browsers, potentially stealing session cookies, performing actions on behalf of the user, or redirecting to malicious sites.
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 AEM version in Felix ConsoleNavigate to /system/console/bundles and locate the Adobe Experience Manager Core WCM bundle, or check the start.log file for the version string at startup.Affected if Version is earlier than 6.5.22.0 or earlier than 2024.11.0 (for Cloud/2024 releases)
-
Verify AEM version via CRX Package ManagerAccess /crx/packmgr/service.jsp and check the version in the response, or query the JMX console at /system/console/jmx/com.adobe.granite%3Atype%3DRepository for the version property.Affected if Version reported is < 6.5.22.0 or < 2024.11.0
-
Identify form components in the content structureUse CRXDE Lite (at /crx/index.jsp) or query the repository under /content to locate Form components (core form, foundation form, or custom form containers) that accept user input and store data.Affected if Form components exist and accept unvalidated input in the current setup
-
Review custom form field components for input validationExamine form component JSP or HTL files under /apps for the presence of input validation logic (such as XSS API encoding or server-side validation) on form input fields.Affected if Form field components lack input validation or output encoding for user-supplied data
You are affected if your AEM version is earlier than 6.5.22.0 (for 6.5.x releases) or earlier than 2024.11.0 (for Cloud/2024 releases) AND your implementation uses form fields that accept and store user input without validation.
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 (AEM 6.5.22 or later). Until patched, implement input validation and output encoding on all form fields in AEM, and consider Content Security Policy headers to mitigate XSS execution.
Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.22.0 (or 2024.11.0 for the newer release train)
- 1. Backup the AEM instance and its content repository before proceeding with any upgrade
- 2. Review Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.22.0 release notes (or 2024.11.0 if on the newer release train) for any breaking changes, migration requirements, or known issues
- 3. Download the appropriate fixed version package from Adobe (6.5.22.0 for the 6.5.x line or 2024.11.0 for the 2024 release train)
- 4. Test the upgrade in a non-production environment first to ensure compatibility with custom code, templates, and integrations
- 5. Apply the upgrade following Adobe's standard upgrade procedure for AEM
- 6. Verify the upgrade was successful and test that the XSS vulnerability is no longer exploitable in the affected form fields
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-52835 — 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-2024-52835 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