CVE-2025-46892
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 6.5.22 and earlier are affected by a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability that could be abused by a low privileged 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 6.5.22 and earlier contain a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in form fields. A low-privilege attacker can inject malicious JavaScript into form input fields, which persists in the system. When other users subsequently browse to pages containing these compromised form fields, the malicious script executes in their browsers, enabling session hijacking, data theft, or defacement.
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< 6.5.23.0< 2025.5.0CVSS 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.
-
Determine installed AEM versionAccess the AEM Welcome page and navigate to Tools > Operations > Diagnosis, or check the version file in crx-quickstart/org/apache/felix/version.properties. Alternatively, append /system/console/bundles.json to your AEM instance URL to view version information.Affected if The installed version is earlier than 6.5.23.0 or earlier than 2025.5.0 (the 2024.x and 2025.x releases are also affected below 2025.5.0).
-
Identify form fields in the systemReview your AEM instance for custom or Adaptive Forms, Form Fragments, or any custom form components that accept user input. Check the CRX/DE repository under /apps or /content for form-related components.Affected if Form fields exist and accept user input without proper input validation and output encoding configurations.
-
Examine stored form data for malicious scriptsQuery the repository or database where form submissions are stored (commonly under /content/forms/af or custom form data repositories). Search for patterns like <script>, javascript:, onerror=, onload=, or other HTML/script injection patterns in form field values.Affected if Any form submission records contain unsanitized script tags or event handlers that could execute in user browsers.
-
Review form field input validation settingsCheck the form field component configurations in AEM for presence of input validation rules, Regex patterns, or server-side validation. Inspect the client-side and server-side encoding settings for form outputs.Affected if Form fields lack input validation rules, regex patterns, or output encoding is disabled or misconfigured.
You are affected if your AEM version is below 6.5.23.0 or below 2025.5.0 AND your system contains form fields that accept user input without proper validation or encoding, or if malicious scripts already exist in stored form data.
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 · scoped6.5.23.02025.5.0
Upgrade Adobe Experience Manager to version 6.5.23 or later. Additionally, implement input validation and output encoding on all form fields to prevent script injection.
AEM 6.5.23.0+ or AEM 2025.5.0+ (depending on your deployment model)
- 1. Review Adobe Experience Manager upgrade documentation for your current version
- 2. Create a full backup of your AEM instance including repository, database, and configurations
- 3. Test the upgrade in a non-production environment first
- 4. For AEM 6.5.x: Upgrade to version 6.5.23.0 or later
- 5. For AEM Cloud/2025.x: Upgrade to version 2025.5.0 or later
- 6. After upgrade, verify the XSS vulnerability is resolved by testing form fields that could accept user input
- 7. Deploy to production after successful validation
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing24.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $15,232.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-46892 — 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-2025-46892 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