CVE-2025-64585
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 6.5.23 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 6.5.23 and earlier contain a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in form fields. A low-privileged attacker can inject malicious JavaScript payloads that persist in the system and execute in victims' browsers when they view pages containing the compromised 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< 6.5.24.0< 2025.12.0= 6.5CVSS 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 AEM versionAccess the AEM system information page at /system/console/configMgr or check the version file in the installation directory, or run: curl -s http://<host>:<port>/system/console/bundles.json (authenticated)Affected if The installed version is below 6.5.24.0, below 2025.12.0, or exactly 6.5.x
-
Locate AEM forms using user inputIdentify content fragments or custom form components that accept user-submitted data. Check the repository under /apps or /content for form field configurations and custom component definitions.Affected if Custom form components or adaptive forms that do not use AEM's built-in form handling are present and accept user input
-
Inspect stored form data for malicious scriptsQuery the AEM repository (JCR) or database where form submissions are stored. Look for script tags, javascript: URIs, or event handlers in form field values. Example JCR SQL2 query: SELECT * FROM nt:base WHERE jcr:path LIKE '/content/forms/%'Affected if Form submission data contains unsanitized HTML or JavaScript payloads, such as <script> tags, onerror attributes, or javascript: protocol handlers
-
Review content publishing workflowExamine the publish workflow or dispatcher configuration to see how form data flows from author to publish instances, and verify if output encoding is applied when form fields are rendered.Affected if Form fields are rendered on pages without proper output encoding or HTML sanitization applied at render time
A user is affected if their AEM installation version is below 6.5.24.0 or 2025.12.0 AND custom or user-generated form fields exist that accept input without server-side validation and are rendered without 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 · scoped6.5.24.02025.12.0
Apply Adobe security patch 6.5.24 or later to address the XSS vulnerability. Additionally, implement proper input validation and output encoding for all form fields as a defense-in-depth measure.
6.5.24.0 or 2025.12.0 (or later)
- 1. Back up the current AEM instance, including the repository, database, and configuration files.
- 2. Review Adobe's official documentation for upgrade prerequisites and compatibility requirements for version 6.5.24.0 or 2025.12.0.
- 3. Create a staging environment that mirrors production to test the upgrade before applying it to the live system.
- 4. Download the Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.24.0 or 2025.12.0 (or later) package from the Adobe Software Distribution portal.
- 5. Install the upgrade package following Adobe's recommended upgrade procedure.
- 6. After upgrade, verify that custom code, third-party integrations, and workflows function correctly.
- 7. Test the specific form fields that were previously vulnerable to ensure the XSS fix is properly applied.
- 8. Once validation is complete, apply the same upgrade to the production environment.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-64585 — 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-2025-64585 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