CVE-2025-46945
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. Low-privileged authenticated users can inject malicious JavaScript payloads into vulnerable form inputs, which are then stored and executed in the browsers of other users who view pages containing those 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.
-
Verify AEM versionAccess the AEM System Information console (typically at /system/console/systeminfo or via the Help menu > System Information) and note the exact version number displayed.Affected if The version is 6.5.22 or earlier, or falls below 2025.5.0 (for cloud/2025 releases).
-
Identify form components in useReview the AEM instance for Adaptive Forms, Core Form Components, or custom form field components. Check the CRX/DE repository under /libs/fd/af or /libs/core/components for installed form structures.Affected if Form components that accept user input are actively deployed on the AEM instance.
-
Inspect form field content in the repositoryQuery the JCR repository for form field values using CRXDE Lite or the Query tool. Search under /content for nodes containing form data, looking for unusual script tags, javascript: URIs, or HTML event handlers within text fields.Affected if Malicious payloads exist in form field content nodes in the repository.
-
Review request logs for XSS injection attemptsExamine the AEM access.log and error.log files (located in /crx-quickstart/logs) for suspicious requests containing script tags, <script>, event handlers (onload, onerror, onclick), or javascript: prefixes in form submission parameters.Affected if Log entries show XSS injection patterns in form-related POST requests.
You are affected if your AEM version is below 6.5.23.0 (or below 2025.5.0 for cloud releases) and you have form components that accept user input accessible to low-privileged authenticated users.
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-supplied patch by updating to Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.23 or later. Validate that form field inputs are properly sanitized and consider implementing Content Security Policy (CSP) headers as a defense-in-depth measure.
Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.23.0 (or later 6.5.x) or 2025.5.0 (or later) depending on your release track
- Verify current AEM version in use by checking the product about page or version.properties file
- Review the Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.23.0 or 2025.5.0 release notes for new features, fixed issues, and known issues
- Perform a complete backup of the AEM instance including the repository, database, and configuration files
- Test the upgrade in a non-production environment first to identify any compatibility issues
- Ensure all custom code and third-party integrations are compatible with the target version
- Execute the upgrade following Adobe's official upgrade documentation for your specific deployment type
- After upgrade, verify that the stored XSS vulnerability is resolved by testing the previously vulnerable form fields
- Validate that all custom applications and workflows function correctly post-upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,512.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-46945 — 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-2025-46945 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