CVE-2025-46900
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 payloads into vulnerable form inputs, which persist in the system. When legitimate users browse to pages containing these compromised form fields, the malicious script executes in their browsers, potentially allowing session hijacking, credential 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.
-
Identify installed AEM versionAccess the AEM Web Console (Help > System Information or /system/console/status.html) to view the current product version. Alternatively, check the manifest file in the AEM quickstart jar or the version.properties file in the crx-quickstart folder.Affected if The installed version is below 6.5.23.0 or below 2025.5.0 (for cloud/flex versions)
-
Locate form field componentsReview the AEM Forms implementation by accessing the Forms & Documents console (/aem/forms.html) or examining the /content/forms/af node in the CRX/DE repository. Identify which adaptive forms or core components are in use.Affected if Adaptive Forms or Form Core Components are deployed and users can submit form data
-
Inspect form data repositories for XSS payloadsQuery the JCR repository (via CRXDE Lite at /crx/de or using the Query Manager) for stored form submissions containing suspicious patterns. Search nodes under /content/forms/af for patterns like <script>, javascript:, onerror=, onload=, or other HTML/script tags in form field values.Affected if Any form submissions contain unsanitized HTML or script tags stored in form field data nodes
-
Review recent form submissions for malicious contentCheck the Form Data Model service or the persistence layer for recent form submissions. Use AEM Forms dashboard or query the submission nodes at /content/forms/fp or custom submission endpoints for unusual script content.Affected if Recent form submissions contain JavaScript code or HTML markup in text input fields
A user is affected if their AEM version is below 6.5.23.0 (or 2025.5.0 for newer releases) AND they have forms with fields that accept user input and store data in the repository.
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
Apply the vendor patch for AEM 6.5.22 or later. Additionally, implement output encoding on form fields and consider Content Security Policy headers to mitigate XSS execution.
Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.23.0 or Adobe Experience Manager 2025.5.0
- Backup the current Adobe Experience Manager instance including repository, database, and configurations
- Download Adobe Experience Manager version 6.5.23.0 (for 6.x customers) or 2025.5.0 (for Cloud Service customers) from official Adobe channels
- Test the upgrade thoroughly in a non-production/staging environment before deploying to production
- Deploy the fixed version to production following standard AEM upgrade procedures
- Verify the patch is applied by checking the AEM version in the About Adobe Experience Manager information
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $4,592.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-46900 — 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-2025-46900 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