CVE-2025-46949
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 input fields, which are then stored and executed in the browsers of users who view pages containing those 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 Web Console Diagnostics page at /system/console/status or check the version file in the crx-quickstart folder. You can also find version info in the AEM Welcome page under 'Version' or by querying the sling:osgiConfig.Affected if The installed version is earlier than 6.5.23.0 or earlier than 2025.5.0
-
Identify custom form components in useReview the /apps directory for custom form components such as form fields, text inputs, or textareas that collect and store user data. Check your content pages for any forms that use these custom components.Affected if Custom form components that accept user input are deployed in the environment
-
Examine form field rendering codeOpen the template files (JSP, HTL, orSightly) for the form components. Look for places where form field values are rendered back to users. Check if the code uses context-specific encoding functions (such as XSS API or HTL context options) when outputting user-submitted values.Affected if Form templates output user input without proper HTML, JavaScript, or URL encoding
-
Test form fields with XSS payloadLog in with a low-privileged user account. Create or edit a form using the custom form components. Enter a test payload like <img src=x onerror=alert(1)> into text fields and save. View the page containing the form in a browser.Affected if The payload executes JavaScript when the form is viewed by other users
You are affected if your AEM version is below 6.5.23.0 or below 2025.5.0 AND you have custom form components that render stored 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
Implement proper input validation and output encoding on all form fields in AEM. Apply context-sensitive encoding based on where the user input is rendered (HTML, JavaScript, URL, etc.) to prevent script execution.
Upgrade to AEM 6.5.23.0 (for 6.5.x branch) or 2025.5.0 (for cloud/newer releases)
- Review the Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.23.0 or 2025.5.0 release notes for changes and migration requirements
- Create a full backup of the current AEM instance including the repository, database, and configuration
- Set up a staging or development environment running the current production version
- In staging, execute the upgrade to version 6.5.23.0 (for 6.5.x branch) or 2025.5.0 (for newer releases)
- Validate that custom code, workflows, and integrations function correctly post-upgrade
- After successful staging validation, schedule a maintenance window for production deployment
- Apply the same upgrade procedure to the production environment
- Verify the XSS fix is applied by confirming the AEM version matches the fixed release
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-46949 — 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-2025-46949 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