CVE-2025-46989
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 confidenceStored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Adobe Experience Manager versions 6.5.22 and earlier allows low-privilege users to inject malicious JavaScript into form fields. The malicious payload persists on the server and executes in victims' browsers when they view the affected page.
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 or system console (typically at /libs/granite/core/content/login.html or /system/console/about), or check the version file in the installation directory. Compare the version number against the affected ranges: below 6.5.23.0 or below 2025.5.0Affected if The installed version is 6.5.22 or earlier, or falls below 2025.5.0
-
Locate form components accepting user inputReview the AEM instance for deployed forms or user-generated content components. Check content pages under /content that contain form fields (input fields, textareas, rich text editors) where low-privilege users can submit dataAffected if Forms with input fields are present and accessible to low-privilege users
-
Verify low-privilege user access to form submissionLog in with a low-privilege user account (such as a standard Author or Contributor role) and attempt to access form creation or editing interfaces. Check user permissions under /home/users to confirm the group membership and access rightsAffected if Low-privilege users have write access to form fields or content creation interfaces
-
Inspect stored form data for unescaped contentUse CRX/DE (accessible at /crx/de) to navigate to stored content nodes under /content where form submissions are saved. Examine the raw data in the jcr:content properties for any HTML or script tags that may not be properly encodedAffected if Stored form data contains raw HTML or script tags in user-submitted fields without encoding
A user is affected if their AEM version is below 6.5.23.0 or below 2025.5.0 AND they have forms accessible to low-privilege users where malicious script payloads could be stored and served to other 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 patch by updating Adobe Experience Manager to a version later than 6.5.22. If immediate patching is not possible, implement output encoding and input validation on vulnerable form fields as a compensating control.
AEM 6.5.23.0 or later; AEM as a Cloud Service 2025.5.0 or later
- Review Adobe Experience Manager upgrade documentation relevant to your deployment type (6.5.x on-premise or AEM as a Cloud Service)
- Create a full backup of your current AEM instance including the content repository
- Test the upgrade in a non-production/staging environment before applying to production
- For AEM 6.5.x on-premise: upgrade to version 6.5.23.0 or later
- For AEM as a Cloud Service: ensure deployment targets version 2025.5.0 or later
- After upgrade, verify the XSS vulnerability is patched by testing the affected form fields
- Deploy to production once validation is complete
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $4,416.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-46989 — 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-2025-46989 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