CVE-2026-27237
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 vulnerability where low-privileged attackers can inject malicious JavaScript into form fields. The injected payload persists in the application and executes when other users browse to pages containing the affected 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< 2026.2.0= 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 versionLog into AEM as admin and navigate to the Welcome page, or access /system/console/status-productinfo to view the product version. Also check the crx-quickstart/app.properties file for version information.Affected if The installed version is 6.5.x where x is 23 or lower, or falls below 6.5.24.0, or is labeled as version 6.5 without a specific patch number, or is below 2026.2.0.
-
Confirm Forms or Adaptive Forms feature is enabledNavigate to AEM Tools > Forms > Adaptive Form Editor, or check the system console at /system/console/bundles for 'forms' related bundles being active.Affected if Forms or Adaptive Forms functionality is installed and active in the AEM instance.
-
Verify if low-privileged users have form creation or editing accessNavigate to Users > Permissions in AEM, or check the group permissions for 'forms-user' or 'forms-authors' group. Look for users assigned to contributor or author roles who can access form editing.Affected if Low-privileged users (contributors, authors without full admin rights) have permissions to create, edit, or submit forms.
-
Inspect form field configuration for input validationOpen a form in Adaptive Form Editor, select any text field, and inspect the field properties panel under the Validation tab. Check whether 'Allow Rich Text' or custom validation rules are configured.Affected if Form fields allow rich text input or custom validation without proper sanitization, or no input validation constraints are defined.
A user is affected if their AEM version is 6.5.23 or earlier (below 6.5.24.0 or 2026.2.0), Forms/Adaptive Forms are enabled, and low-privileged users can inject unsanitized content into form fields that persists for other users to encounter.
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 · scoped6.5.24.02026.2.0
Upgrade AEM to a version newer than 6.5.23, or implement proper input validation and output encoding on form fields to prevent script execution.
6.5.24.0 or later (or 2026.2.0+ if using the 2026 release line)
- 1. Identify the current Adobe Experience Manager version by checking the product information or system console
- 2. Schedule a maintenance window for the upgrade process
- 3. Create a full backup of the current AEM instance including repository, database, and configurations
- 4. Test the upgrade in a staging or development environment before production deployment
- 5. Upgrade Adobe Experience Manager to version 6.5.24.0 or later (or to version 2026.2.0+ if using the 2026 release line)
- 6. After upgrade, verify that the stored XSS vulnerability is resolved by testing the previously vulnerable form fields
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-27237 — 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-2026-27237 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