Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-24438 is a high-severity Cross-site Scripting (CWE-79) vulnerability in Adobe Commerce. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Browser Session Hijacking (T1185); ranked in the top 47% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
Adobe Commerce versions 2.4.8-beta1, 2.4.7-p3, 2.4.6-p8, 2.4.5-p10, 2.4.4-p11 and earlier contain a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability tracked as CVE-2025-24438. The flaw, assigned CWE-79, allows injection of malicious scripts into vulnerable form fields; when another user views the affected page the script executes in the browser. The issue carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 8.7 reflecting network attack vector, low attack complexity, low privileges required, and high impact on confidentiality and integrity.
A low-privileged attacker with the ability to supply content through the vulnerable fields can store JavaScript that runs in the context of a higher-privileged victim. Successful exploitation enables session takeover, giving the attacker the victim’s privileges within the Adobe Commerce instance.
The Adobe security advisory APSB25-08 recommends applying the patches released for the listed versions; administrators should upgrade to the fixed releases and review any custom form fields that accept user input. The associated EPSS score has remained flat at 0.0446 with no observed rise after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-3717
Vulnerability Data
Adobe Commerce versions 2.4.8-beta1, 2.4.7-p3, 2.4.6-p8, 2.4.5-p10, 2.4.4-p11 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…
more
in a victim’s browser when they browse to the page containing the vulnerable field. A successful attacker can abuse this to achieve session takeover, increasing the confidentiality and integrity impact as high.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.1.2V1.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect input neutralization through targeted web-application tests.
Input validation directly enforces neutralization of untrusted data before it reaches web output generation.
Output filtering can catch or sanitize unneutralized script content before it is served to users.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly target introduction of XSS via coding standards/testing (mostly), yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors unaddressed (partial).
Patching and EOL replacement can remediate known XSS instances in libraries or frameworks (partial) but do nothing to enforce input neutralization in application code (none).
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure-coding testing and automated code-analysis tools are applied to detect improper neutralization of script-related content during web-page generation.
Knowledge exchange on emerging attack techniques and patches reduces the likelihood that cross-site scripting flaws remain unaddressed in deployed applications.
Operational indicators of compromise for web-application attacks can be incorporated into WAF or input-filtering rules, lowering the likelihood that unsanitized data reaches the browser.
Requiring language-specific secure-coding standards and automated scanning during the SDLC catches missing output encoding or improper neutralization of untrusted data before the software reaches production.
Secure-coding standards, SAST scans and removal of insecure code samples together eliminate the failure to neutralize script content that produces cross-site scripting flaws.