CVE-2025-47030
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 into vulnerable form inputs, which persists in the system. When other users view pages containing these compromised fields, the malicious script executes in their browsers, potentially allowing session hijacking, credential theft, or defacement.
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 if Adobe Experience Manager is runningCheck for AEM processes listening on common ports (typically 4502 for author, 4503 for publish) using 'netstat -an | grep -E "450[23]"' or inspect running servicesAffected if AEM instances are found on the system
-
Determine installed AEM versionCheck the version file at [AEM_install_dir]/crx-quickstart/package/org.apache.jackrabbit-standalone*.jar or access the system console at /system/console/bundles and view the AEM version from the bundle informationAffected if Version is below 6.5.23.0 or below 2025.5.0
-
Verify form field modules are accessibleNavigate to the AEM Forms interface or check for form authoring capabilities at /aem/forms or /libs/foundation/components/forms, and confirm low-privileged users have access to create or edit form contentAffected if Form authoring functionality is enabled and accessible to low-privileged users
-
Inspect stored form data for suspicious scriptsQuery the AEM repository (CRX/CRXDE) or JCR for form submissions containing script tags or javascript: URIs in text fields: use CRXDE Lite search or run a JCR SQL2 query like 'SELECT * FROM nt:base WHERE jcr:path LIKE "/content/%" AND CONTAINS(*, "<script")'Affected if Form data contains unsanitized script tags or event handlers in stored field values
-
Review recent audit logs for XSS patternsAccess the AEM audit log at /var/audit or through the Operations Dashboard and search for entries containing common XSS payloads like '<script', 'javascript:', 'onerror=', or 'onload=' in form-related operationsAffected if Audit logs show injection attempts or suspicious script content in form field submissions
The environment is affected if Adobe Experience Manager version is below 6.5.23.0 or below 2025.5.0, form fields are accessible to low-privileged users, and malicious scripts are 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
Upgrade Adobe Experience Manager to a version newer than 6.5.22, and implement proper input validation and output encoding on all form fields to prevent script injection.
AEM 6.5.23.0 or later; AEM as a Cloud Service 2025.5.0 or later
- Upgrade Adobe Experience Manager to version 6.5.23.0 or later for the 6.5.x branch
- Alternatively, upgrade to version 2025.5.0 or later for the cloud release branch
- After upgrading, verify the XSS fix is applied by testing the affected form fields
- Clear AEM caches and publish the updated package to all relevant environments
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $8,256.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-47030 — 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-2025-47030 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