CVE-2025-47083
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-privileged attackers to inject malicious JavaScript into form fields. The malicious payload persists in the system and executes in victims' browsers when they view pages containing the affected 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 Welcome page or check the product version through the system information console, typically available at /system/console or via the About Adobe Experience Manager option in the help menu. Compare the displayed version number against the vulnerable ranges: versions prior to 6.5.23.0 or versions prior to 2025.5.0.Affected if The installed version is lower than 6.5.23.0 (for AEM 6.5.x line) or lower than 2025.5.0 (for newer release trains).
-
Identify form field implementationsReview the AEM Forms or Adaptive Forms configurations in the CRX/DE repository under /libs or /apps. Identify any custom form components or field definitions that handle user input.Affected if Custom or modified form field components exist that may not implement input validation or output encoding on submitted values.
-
Inspect stored form data for suspicious contentQuery the AEM repository or form data storage (such as the data store or database where form submissions are persisted) for common XSS payload patterns such as <script>, javascript:, onerror=, onload=, or other HTML/JavaScript event handlers in form field values.Affected if Stored form entries contain unescaped HTML tags or JavaScript event handlers that could execute in a victim's browser.
-
Review form submission logsExamine AEM access logs and form submission audit logs for patterns indicating injection attempts or the presence of script tags or JavaScript protocols in form field submissions.Affected if Form submissions contain malicious payloads that successfully persisted in the system.
You are affected if your AEM version is below 6.5.23.0 (6.5.x line) or below 2025.5.0 and you have form fields that accept user input without proper sanitization.
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 vendor patch (AEM 6.5.23 or later) to address the vulnerability. Implement input validation and output encoding on form fields as a compensating control until the patch is applied.
6.5.23.0 (for 6.5.x branch) or 2025.5.0 (for newer release branch)
- Create a complete backup of the AEM repository, database, and configuration files before proceeding with the upgrade
- Review the official Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.23.0 or 2025.5.0 release notes for any migration requirements or known issues
- Set up a staging or development environment that mirrors the production configuration
- Test the upgrade in the staging environment to validate compatibility with custom code, third-party integrations, and workflows
- Schedule a maintenance window for the production upgrade
- Stop the AEM instance and any related services
- Run the upgrade procedure following Adobe's official documentation for your deployment type (JAR or war)
- After upgrade completion, verify the AEM instance starts successfully
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-47083 — 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-2025-47083 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