CVE-2025-46915
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 · moderate 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 in the system and executes in victims' browsers when they browse to 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.
-
Identify installed AEM versionAccess the AEM Web Console (typically at /system/console/bundles or /crx/packmgr) or check the product version via the Help menu > About Adobe Experience Manager. Record the exact version number.Affected if The installed version is earlier than 6.5.23.0 or earlier than 2025.5.0 (e.g., 6.5.22, 6.5.21, 2025.4.0, etc.)
-
Inventory form fields in the systemReview all AEM Adaptive Forms, Core Components form containers, or custom form implementations in the content hierarchy. Use CRX/DE (accessible at /crx/de) to search for nodes of type core:form or foundation/components/form.Affected if Form fields accepting user input exist in the environment, particularly those lacking server-side validation configuration.
-
Inspect stored form data for suspicious payloadsQuery the JCR (Java Content Repository) for existing form submissions or user-generated content. Use CRX/DE or a repository query tool to search for common XSS patterns such as <script>, javascript:, onerror=, onload=, or other HTML/JS tags within form field data nodes.Affected if Any form submission nodes contain HTML tags, script elements, or event handler attributes (e.g., <img onerror=...>, <script>...</script>, javascript:...)
-
Verify form input validation configurationReview the XML configuration or dialog properties of form components in /apps or /libs. Check whether each form field has validation constraints enabled (such as granite:data types, sling:resourceType constraints, or custom validation rules).Affected if Form fields do not have input validation, sanitization, or constraint rules configured, allowing arbitrary content submission.
You are affected if your AEM version is below 6.5.23.0 or below 2025.5.0 AND your environment contains form fields that accept user input without proper validation, or if malicious scripts are already present 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
Update Adobe Experience Manager to version 6.5.23 or later to apply the vendor patch. Additionally, audit existing user-generated content for malicious payloads and implement input validation/sanitization on form fields.
AEM 6.5.23.0 or AEM 2025.5.0
- Verify current Adobe Experience Manager version in use by checking the AEM welcome page or system console
- Review Adobe's official upgrade documentation for AEM 6.5.23.0 or 2025.5.0 release notes
- Create a full backup of the AEM instance including repository, database, and configuration files
- Perform a staging/development environment upgrade to the target version (6.5.23.0 or 2025.5.0)
- Run regression tests to verify custom components, workflows, and integrations function correctly
- Deploy the validated upgrade to production environment
- Verify the XSS vulnerability is remediated by testing the previously vulnerable form fields
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $6,432.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-46915 — 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-2025-46915 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