CVE-2025-64604
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. A low-privilege attacker can inject malicious JavaScript into vulnerable form fields, which persists in the system. When victims browse to pages containing these compromised fields, the malicious script executes in their browsers.
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.
-
Check installed AEM versionAccess the AEM Web Console at /system/console/bundles or use the version.xml endpoint. Alternatively, check the crx-quickstart/license.properties file for the productversion field. Compare the version number against the affected ranges: versions below 6.5.24.0, versions below 2025.12.0, or version 6.5 exactly.Affected if The installed version is 6.5.23 or earlier, or exactly 6.5, or below 2025.12.0.
-
Identify form components in the systemReview the AEM Forms or Core Components implementation in your content repository. Check under /apps or /content for form-related components such as form containers, text fields, or text input components that accept user-submitted data.Affected if Form fields that accept user input exist and lack proper input validation or output encoding.
-
Inspect stored form data for malicious scriptsQuery the JCR (Java Content Repository) for suspicious script tags in form field content nodes. Use a tool like CRXDE Lite or a repository query to search for patterns like <script, javascript:, or onload/onerror event handlers stored in form submission nodes under /content/forms or similar data storage locations.Affected if Malicious JavaScript code is found stored in form submission data or form field content nodes.
-
Review recent form submission logsCheck AEM access logs and form submission audit logs for patterns indicating XSS attempts, such as requests containing script tags or event handler attributes in form parameter values.Affected if Logs show evidence of script injection attempts in form field parameters.
Your environment is affected if the installed AEM version is 6.5.23 or earlier, exactly 6.5, or below 2025.12.0 AND you have form components that accept user input without proper validation.
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
Upgrade Adobe Experience Manager to a version newer than 6.5.23 that includes the security patch. Additionally, implement input validation and output encoding on form fields as a defense-in-depth measure.
6.5.24.0 (for 6.5.x line) or 2025.12.0 (for 2025.x line)
- 1. Identify the current Adobe Experience Manager version by checking the product information in the AEM welcome page or system console
- 2. If running AEM 6.5.x line (versions 6.5 to 6.5.23), plan an upgrade to version 6.5.24.0 or later
- 3. If running AEM 2025.x line (versions before 2025.12.0), plan an upgrade to version 2025.12.0 or later
- 4. Review Adobe's official upgrade documentation for AEM 6.5.24.0 or the 2025.12.0 release
- 5. Perform the upgrade following Adobe's recommended upgrade procedures
- 6. After upgrade, verify the version number matches the fixed release
- 7. Test that the XSS vulnerability is no longer exploitable in the affected form fields
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-2025-64604 — 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-2025-64604 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