CVE-2025-64789
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 where low-privileged attackers can inject malicious JavaScript into form fields. When victims view pages containing these compromised fields, the injected script executes in their browsers, potentially enabling session hijacking or data theft.
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 the AEM versionAccess the AEM welcome page or check the version.properties file in the crx-quickstart folder. Compare the installed version against the affected ranges: < 6.5.24.0, < 2025.12.0, and version 6.5Affected if The installed version is 6.5.x where x is less than 24, any version below 2025.12.0, or exactly 6.5
-
Identify form fields accepting user inputReview the AEM form components and custom form implementations in the system. Check which form fields allow unauthenticated or low-privileged user input without server-side validationAffected if Form fields exist that accept user input and lack proper input validation or output encoding
-
Examine stored form data for malicious payloadsQuery the AEM content repository (CRX/DE) or database for form submission data. Look for JavaScript tags, event handlers, or suspicious script patterns stored in form field content nodesAffected if Form submission data contains unencoded script tags or JavaScript event handlers
-
Check AEM logs for XSS-related security eventsReview error.log and security logs in the logs folder for XSS filter warnings, potential injection attempts, or security exception messages related to form submissionsAffected if Logs contain XSS filter warnings or suspicious input patterns in form-related requests
-
Verify if CSP headers are absentInspect HTTP responses from the AEM publish instance using browser developer tools or a web scanner. Check for Content-Security-Policy headers in the responseAffected if CSP headers are missing or not configured, making XSS execution easier
Your environment is affected if the installed AEM version falls within the affected ranges AND low-privileged users can inject content into form fields that are later rendered without proper 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
Implement robust input validation and output encoding on all form fields, and deploy Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to mitigate XSS execution. Apply the vendor patch once available.
AEM 6.5.24.0 or AEM 2025.12.0 (depending on your release line)
- Review the Adobe Experience Manager upgrade documentation at helpx.adobe.com for your specific version line
- Backup your current AEM instance including the repository, database, and configurations
- Test the upgrade in a staging environment before deploying to production
- Upgrade AEM 6.5.x installations to version 6.5.24.0 or later
- Upgrade AEM 2025.x installations to version 2025.12.0 or later
- After upgrading, validate that the XSS fix is properly applied by testing form field inputs with malicious script payloads
- Verify that custom code and integrations function correctly post-upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-64789 — 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-2025-64789 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