CVE-2025-64620
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 · moderate 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 into vulnerable form inputs, which persist in the system and execute in the browsers of users who view pages containing those 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.
-
Verify your AEM versionAccess the AEM Welcome page or check the version.properties file in the crx-quickstart directory. On the Welcome page, look for the version number displayed. Compare this against the affected ranges: versions earlier than 6.5.24.0 or earlier than 2025.12.0.Affected if Your installed AEM version is 6.5.23 or earlier, or falls below 6.5.24.0 or 2025.12.0.
-
Identify if AEM Forms is enabledCheck the AEM console at /aem/forms.html or navigate to Forms in the AEM navigation panel. Determine whether any Forms adaptive or core components have been created or are in use within your instance.Affected if AEM Forms is installed and form capabilities are actively used on your instance.
-
Locate custom or adaptive form field componentsIn AEM authoring, review any adaptive forms or form containers that accept user input. Check the CRXDE Lite repository under /apps or /content for nodes related to form fields (for example, nodes containing 'field', 'input', 'form', or 'adaptive').Affected if Form field components that accept user input exist in your content repository.
-
Inspect form field input validation configurationExamine the form field component configurations in the CRXDE Lite repository. Look at the XML configuration or policy settings for each form field node. Determine whether input validation rules or output encoding properties are explicitly defined for the field components.Affected if Form fields lack explicit input validation or output encoding settings in their configuration.
You are affected if your AEM version is below 6.5.24.0 or 2025.12.0, and your instance has form fields that accept user input without proper validation configured.
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 the Adobe security patch for AEM 6.5.23 and earlier, and implement strict input validation and output encoding on all form fields to prevent script injection.
AEM 6.5.24.0 or later (or AEM as a Cloud Service 2025.12.0 or later for cloud deployments)
- 1. Identify the current Adobe Experience Manager version by checking the Product Information page in AEM or the version.properties file
- 2. Plan for a production upgrade by first testing the new version in a staging environment
- 3. Create a full backup of the AEM repository (crx-quickstart) and database before proceeding
- 4. Download Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.24.0 or later from the Adobe Distribution portal (https://experience.adobe.com/)
- 5. Follow Adobe's official upgrade documentation for AEM 6.5.x to install the new version
- 6. After upgrade, verify that the stored XSS vulnerability is resolved by testing the affected form fields
- 7. Test critical workflows and integrations to ensure no functionality regressions
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 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 $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-64620 — 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-2025-64620 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