CVE-2025-47089
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 confidenceA stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Adobe Experience Manager versions 6.5.22 and earlier allows low-privileged authenticated users to inject malicious JavaScript into form fields. The malicious payload persists in the system and executes when other users, including administrators, browse to pages containing the affected form 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.
-
Check your Adobe Experience Manager versionLog in to AEM as administrator and navigate to Help > About Adobe Experience Manager, or query the version via the OSGi console at /system/console/coreAffected if The version displayed is below 6.5.23.0 or below 2025.5.0 (note: versions 6.5.x and 2025.x follow different numbering schemes - both ranges indicate vulnerability)
-
Identify custom form components in your implementationReview your /apps folder for custom form components (look for components extending core form fields, specifically those in /apps your-project/components/forms or similar custom component paths)Affected if Custom form components exist that may not implement output encoding on user-supplied input
-
Inspect form field JSP or HTL templates for output encodingOpen the template files (JSP or HTL) for your custom form components and examine how user input is rendered - look for use of @context html or proper encoding functions versus raw outputAffected if Form field templates render user input without proper encoding (for example, using ${{variable}} without @context='html' or equivalent encoding)
-
Review form field model or servlet for input validationExamine the Java model or servlet handling form submissions to verify if input validation is performed before storageAffected if Form submissions are stored without sanitization or validation of special characters
-
Search for suspicious content in form submission dataQuery the JCR repository (via CRXDE Lite at /crx/de or AEM Groovy console) for common XSS payloads in form content nodes, or review recent form submissions for unusual script tagsAffected if Form data contains persisted script tags, event handlers, or javascript: URIs
You are affected if your AEM version is below 6.5.23.0 or below 2025.5.0 AND your system uses custom form components that lack output encoding, allowing injected scripts to persist and execute for 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
Upgrade Adobe Experience Manager to a version newer than 6.5.22. Additionally, implement input validation and output encoding on form fields, and configure Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to mitigate XSS attacks.
AEM 6.5.23.0 or AEM as a Cloud Service 2025.5.0
- Stop the Adobe Experience Manager instance
- Download Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.23.0 or later (or 2025.5.0 or later for Cloud Service) from the Adobe Software Distribution portal
- Perform a full backup of the current AEM instance including repository, database, and configuration files
- Install the new version using the AEM Quickstart jar or via the Package Manager if upgrading within the same major version
- Start the AEM instance and verify the upgrade was successful
- Review and validate that custom code, integrations, and workflows function correctly post-upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $9,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-47089 — 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-2025-47089 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