CVE-2025-46901
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 where low-privileged users can inject malicious JavaScript into form fields. The malicious payload persists in the system and executes when other users view pages containing the compromised fields.
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 System Information console at /system/console/status-productinfo or check the version.properties file in the crx-quickstart folder. You can also run a curl request to the /libs/granite/productinfo/content.json endpoint.Affected if The version is below 6.5.23.0 or below 2025.5.0 (the 2024.xx.xx releases).
-
Identify if Forms or Adaptive Forms are in useNavigate to /libs/fd/fm/extensions or check for content under /content/forms/af in the CRXDE Lite repository. Run a query in the CRXDE search to find nodes of type 'nt:unstructured' with property 'sling:resourceType' containing 'forms'.Affected if Forms or Adaptive Forms are created and stored in the repository, as the vulnerability exploits form field persistence.
-
Review custom form field components for output encodingIn CRXDE Lite, examine any custom form components under /apps that extend core form components. Check the JSP or HTL files for the presence of encoding functions such as context.escapeHtml() or XSSAPI APIs before rendering user input.Affected if Custom form components exist and do not use output encoding on user-submitted values before rendering them back.
-
Inspect form field content for existing malicious payloadsQuery the repository in CRXDE Lite or use the Query debugger to search form field nodes under /content/forms for any script tags, event handlers (onerror, onload), or javascript: URIs stored in text fields.Affected if Any form field content contains encoded or raw script tags, event handler attributes, or javascript: protocols that you did not intentionally create.
You are affected if your AEM version is below 6.5.23.0 or below 2025.5.0 AND you have Forms or Adaptive Forms deployed with fields that accept user input without proper output 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
Update to Adobe Experience Manager version 6.5.23 or later. Until patched, implement output encoding on form fields and consider Content Security Policy headers to mitigate XSS execution.
AEM 6.5.23.0 (LTS) or AEM 2025.5.0 (2025 release)
- Review the Adobe Experience Manager release notes for versions 6.5.23.0 and 2025.5.0 to understand changes and potential impacts
- Plan and schedule the upgrade in a non-production environment first
- Back up the current AEM instance and all content repositories before proceeding
- Upgrade Adobe Experience Manager to version 6.5.23.0 or later (for the 6.5.x LTS line), OR upgrade to version 2025.5.0 or later (for the 2025 release line)
- After upgrade, verify the stored XSS vulnerability is no longer present by testing form fields that were previously vulnerable
- Validate that existing functionality, workflows, and custom integrations continue to work correctly after the upgrade
- Deploy the validated upgrade to production
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation20.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $12,928.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-46901 — 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-2025-46901 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