CVE-2025-46894
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-privileged attacker can inject malicious JavaScript into vulnerable form inputs, which persists in the system and executes when other users browse to affected pages.
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.
-
Identify installed AEM versionAccess the AEM System Information console or check the version.properties file in the crx-quickstart directory. On the welcome screen, navigate to Tools > Operations > Diagnosis > Version Info, or append /system/console/status/versioninfo to your AEM instance URL.Affected if The version is 6.5.22 or earlier, or falls below 2025.5.0 (for Cloud Service releases).
-
Locate custom form field componentsReview the AEM component browser under /apps for any custom form components, particularly those extending the foundation/form components. Check /libs/foundation/components/form for standard form components that may have been customized.Affected if Custom form components exist that modify the default form field rendering or validation logic.
-
Inspect form data storage for persisted scriptsQuery the AEM repository (CRXDE Lite or Query Builder) for stored XSS patterns in form content nodes. Search under /content for nodes containing script tags, javascript:, or event handlers like onload/onerror in form field values.Affected if Form data entries contain unsanitized HTML, script tags, or JavaScript event handlers in field values.
-
Review form field input validation configurationCheck the validation constraints on form components in the Design dialog or model definitions. Look at thegranite:DataType constraints, regex patterns, and any client-side or server-side validation rules configured for form fields.Affected if Form fields lack server-side input validation or output encoding is not configured on the form component.
Your environment is affected if you run AEM versions below 6.5.23.0 or below 2025.5.0 AND have custom or extended form components that accept user input without proper validation and 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 · scoped6.5.23.02025.5.0
Upgrade to Adobe Experience Manager version 6.5.23 or later. Additionally, implement input validation and output encoding on form fields as a defense-in-depth measure.
6.5.23.0 or 2025.5.0+ (upgrade to the earliest fixed version for your release line)
- Back up the current Adobe Experience Manager instance, including the repository, configurations, and custom code
- Review the Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.23.0 release notes and patch documentation on helpx.adobe.com to confirm the XSS vulnerability fix
- Download Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.23.0 (or the 2025.5.0 release line for newer installations) from the official Adobe distribution portal
- Set up a staging or test environment mirroring production to validate the upgrade
- Install the upgraded AEM version following Adobe's standard upgrade procedures
- Verify that the stored XSS vulnerability is remediated by testing form field inputs with benign scripts
- Deploy the upgraded version to production after successful validation
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-2025-46894 — 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-2025-46894 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