CVE-2026-110084
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/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-2026-110084 is a high-severity aka Blind XPath Injection (CWE-91) vulnerability in Adobe Experience Manager (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Security Account Manager (T1003.002); ranked at the 37th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-100553
Vulnerability Data
Adobe Experience Manager is affected by an XML Injection (aka Blind XPath Injection) vulnerability that could result in a Security feature bypass. A low-privileged attacker could leverage this vulnerability to bypass security measures and gain unauthorized read and limited write…
more
access. Exploitation of this issue does not require user interaction.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Input validation directly stops unneutralized XML metacharacters from reaching the parser.
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 directly requires input neutralization and validation that eliminates XML injection flaws.
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.
Logging can record injection attempts for detection but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring can detect exploitation but provides no preventive control over XML handling.
A.8.25 mandates secure SDLC practices (secure coding guidelines, security requirements, checkpoints, testing including code scans) that reach XML injection when developers follow them, but leaves a minority slice where implementation is incomplete or the outsourced supplier assurance fails.
A.8.26 requires identifying and specifying security requirements (including resilience against SQL injections and input validation) determined via risk assessment; this can address XML injection for some applications but leaves a bounded remainder where requirements are scoped narrowly, not fully enforced in code, or miss XML-specific neutralization.
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles, secure architecture patterns (defense-in-depth, least privilege, distrust external input, fail securely), design reviews against known attack patterns, and data validation/sanitization guidance that reach a slice of XML injection cases, but leaves the dominant code-level neutralization defect untouched without further implementation-specific controls.