CVE-2025-46908
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 confidenceA stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Adobe Experience Manager versions 6.5.22 and earlier allows low-privileged attackers to inject malicious JavaScript into form fields. The malicious payload persists on the server and executes in victims' browsers when they view pages containing the affected 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.
-
Identify installed AEM versionAccess the AEM welcome page and navigate to Tools > Operations > Diagnosis, or append /system/console/status-productinfo to your AEM instance URL to retrieve the exact product version number.Affected if The displayed version is earlier than 6.5.23.0 or earlier than 2025.5.0 (for cloud/early release versions).
-
Verify custom form components are in useReview your AEM content structure under /content or /apps for any form-based components (look for nodes containing 'form', 'field', or custom component definitions).Affected if Custom or out-of-the-box form components that accept user input exist in your content repository.
-
Inspect form field input handlingLocate the HTL/Sightly templates or JavaScript Use-API code that handles form submissions (typically under /apps/your-project/components). Check whether the JSP/HTL files use output encoding (such as the 'html' context in HTL or esapi encoding in JSP) when rendering form field values back to users.Affected if Form field values are rendered without proper output encoding or input validation is absent in the component scripts.
-
Review Content Security Policy configurationCheck your dispatcher configuration or AEM servlet filter settings for CSP headers. Look for 'Content-Security-Policy' response headers in the dispatcher.any or through the Adobe Granite CSRF Filter configuration.Affected if No Content-Security-Policy header is configured, or existing CSP allows 'unsafe-inline' for script sources.
You are affected if your AEM version is below 6.5.23.0 (or below 2025.5.0) AND you have form components that accept user input without proper output encoding or CSP protection.
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 AEM 6.5.23 or later; implement proper input validation and output encoding on all form fields; configure Content Security Policy headers to mitigate XSS execution.
Upgrade to AEM 6.5.23.0 (for 6.x) or AEM 2025.5.0 (for Cloud Service)
- Back up the current Adobe Experience Manager instance and content repository before proceeding with any upgrade
- Review the official Adobe Experience Manager upgrade documentation for your current version
- Download Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.23.0 (for 6.x deployments) or 2025.5.0 (for Cloud Service/2025 releases) from the Adobe Software Distribution portal
- Test the upgrade in a non-production/staging environment to verify compatibility with custom code and integrations
- Apply the upgrade following Adobe's documented upgrade procedures
- Verify that the XSS vulnerability is resolved by testing the previously affected form fields
- Deploy the upgraded instance to production
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 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 $7,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-46908 — 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-2025-46908 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