CVE-2025-64808
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 where low-privileged authenticated users can inject malicious JavaScript into form fields. The malicious payload persists on the server and executes in victim browsers when they view pages containing the compromised 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 installed AEM versionAccess the AEM Web Console at /system/console/configMgr or check the product version from the AEM welcome page (Help > About Adobe Experience Manager). Note the exact version number (e.g., 6.5.21, 6.5.23, 2025.10.0).Affected if The installed version is 6.5.x below 6.5.24.0, any 2025.x version below 2025.12.0, or exactly version 6.5.
-
Confirm AEM edition and release trackDetermine whether the installation follows the 6.5.x LTS track or the 2025.x annual release track. Check the version string format: 6.5.x indicates LTS, while 2025.x indicates the annual release.Affected if The edition matches either the 6.5 LTS track or 2025 annual track and falls within the affected version ranges.
-
Identify custom form components accepting user inputReview the AEM instance for custom form components, adaptive forms, or user-generated content fields. Use CRXDE Lite (accessible at /crx/de) to search for form-related nodes under /apps or /content that accept text input from users.Affected if Custom form components exist that store user-submitted values without server-side validation or output encoding.
-
Verify output encoding on rendered form fieldsCreate a test form field, submit a benign payload containing HTML characters (e.g., <script>alert(1)</script>), then view the rendered page source in a browser to check if the payload is encoded or executed as raw HTML.Affected if The submitted payload renders unencoded in the HTML output, indicating the field is vulnerable to stored XSS.
You are affected if your AEM version is 6.5.x before 6.5.24.0 or 2025.x before 2025.12.0 (or exactly 6.5) AND custom form fields exist that accept user input 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 the vendor patch (AEM 6.5.24 or later). Until patched, implement output encoding on all form field outputs and consider deploying Content-Security-Policy headers to mitigate XSS execution.
Adobe Experience Manager 6.5.24.0 (on-premise) or 2025.12.0 (AEM as a Cloud Service)
- 1. Back up the current Adobe Experience Manager instance and all content repositories
- 2. For AEM 6.5 on-premise: upgrade to version 6.5.24.0 or later
- 3. For AEM as a Cloud Service: upgrade to version 2025.12.0 or later
- 4. Test the upgrade in a non-production environment before deploying to production
- 5. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the AEM version in the Help > About Adobe Experience Manager section
- 6. Validate that the XSS vulnerability is remediated by attempting to inject script content in the previously vulnerable form fields
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-64808 — 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-2025-64808 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