CVE-2026-106626

Executive Summary

CVE-2026-106626 is an Improper Input Validation flaw (CWE-20) in Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) that can lead to arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.1. Exploitation requires the attacker to already hold high privileges on the target system, but no user interaction is needed and the vulnerability scope is changed, meaning a successful exploit can impact resources beyond the vulnerable component's security authority. No public proof-of-concept, exploit code, Nuclei template, or vendor patch currently exists, and the CVE has not yet been scored by FIRST.org's EPSS, leaving defenders dependent on hardening and detection rather than confirmed remediation data.

Technical Analysis

The vulnerability is classified as CWE-20, Improper Input Validation, within Adobe Experience Manager. CWE-20 is a parent/class-level weakness that describes a product receiving input but failing to validate or improperly validating it before the data is used in a security-relevant operation. In the context of AEM, that general failure mode can allow attacker-controlled input to reach code paths, services, or interpreters that should only be reachable with trusted data.

The NVD description states the impact is arbitrary code execution "in the context of the current user," and that the required attacker position is high privilege (PR:H). Combined with the changed scope (S:C), the exploited component can affect assets and security controls outside its own authorization boundary — a notable escalation property. The attack vector is network (AV:N), complexity is low (AC:L), and no user interaction (UI:N) is required. The Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability impacts are each rated High.

Two aspects constrain interpretation of the technical detail:

• The description does not identify the vulnerable input surface, request format, endpoint, parameter, class, or function. Because the accuracy rules for this report prohibit inventing identifiers that do not appear in the source description (e.g., servlet paths, query parameters, or API routes), those specifics are intentionally omitted rather than fabricated.
• The vendor/product field is listed as Unknown/Unknown in the supplied data; the description itself names Adobe Experience Manager. For the purposes of this report, AEM is treated as the affected product, and the vendor is Adobe.

What can be stated with confidence is the vulnerability class and its exploitable properties: an input validation failure that can be driven to code execution by a high-privileged authenticated attacker over the network, without victim interaction, and with cross-boundary impact. This places the CVE in the same family of post-authentication RCE issues that are especially dangerous on internet-exposed AEM instances, where any compromised or misused privileged account becomes a direct path to host/application code execution. Note that "high privileges" in AEM terms typically denotes access to administrative or privileged authoring/operational surfaces; however, the exact permission required is not specified in the available data and should not be assumed.

Insufficient technical detail is available to map the flaw to a specific request flow, JCR content path, servlet, or OSGi component. Analysts should treat the mechanism as: attacker-controlled input → insufficient validation → unsafe use of that input → code execution within the AEM process context.

Exploitation Scenarios

No public PoC or exploit code is available for CVE-2026-106626; the following attack chain is inferred strictly from the vulnerability class (CWE-20) and the CVSS/NVD attributes provided.

1. Reconnaissance / target identification

   • The attacker identifies network-reachable Adobe Experience Manager instances (see Shodan dorks above: matching AEM login/title markers).
   • The attacker determines which privileged access is available, either through their own authorized account, a compromised privileged account, or a previously obtained high-privilege foothold.

2. Triggering the flaw (vulnerability-class level)

   • Because the flaw is Improper Input Validation (CWE-20), the attacker supplies crafted input to the affected AEM functionality. The request is delivered over the network (AV:N) with no need to entice a user (UI:N).
   • The specific endpoint, parameter, and encoding are not disclosed in the available data and are not invented here. At the class level, the attacker attempts to construct input that bypasses or does not satisfy the component's validation logic, such that it is consumed by a downstream operation that does not expect untrusted data.

3. Execution method (vulnerability-class level)

   • The unvalidated input is ultimately used in a security-sensitive operation, allowing arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. The attacker's goal is to make the AEM process execute attacker-influenced code rather than merely return data or cause an error.
   • Since the scope is changed (S:C), the resulting execution can affect resources beyond the authorization boundary of the originally targeted component; the blast radius is therefore larger than the immediate input-handling code.

4. Post-exploitation impact

   • Successful exploitation grants code execution with High Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability impact: data disclosure, modification, and/or service disruption on the AEM host.
   • Because the scope is changed, the adversary can pivot from the vulnerable component into neighboring resources, complicating containment and attribution.
   • The foothold can be leveraged for persistence, lateral movement, and further privilege escalation within the affected environment, consistent with an initial-access/execution objective (T1190).

Precondition caveat: the exploitability of this CVE is gated by the requirement for high privileges (PR:H). It is not an unauthenticated, remotely reachable zero-click flaw from an anonymous perspective. That materially reduces opportunistic mass exploitation and instead points to insider, post-compromise, or otherwise privileged-account abuse scenarios.

Impact Assessment

• CVSS 3.1 Base Score: 9.1 (CRITICAL). Vector: AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H.
• Attack Vector (N): exploitable remotely over the network — no local or adjacent access needed.
• Attack Complexity (L): no special conditions, timing, or race required to attempt exploitation.
• Privileges Required (H): the attacker must already possess high privileges. This is the single most important scoping factor; it prevents anonymous, mass-scan exploitation.
• User Interaction (N): no victim action required — the flaw can be triggered directly by the attacker.
• Scope (C): changed. Exploitation can impact resources beyond the vulnerable component's security authority, enabling impact propagation across trust boundaries.
• C/I/A: High across all three — full loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability within the affected context.

Business impact:

• Systems affected: Adobe Experience Manager deployments, including internet-facing author/publish and administrative surfaces. Exact version ranges are unknown from the provided data; affected versions are unavailable in the intelligence set.
• Blast radius: Because scope is changed and impact is high on all three pillars, a single successful exploitation can compromise the AEM application and adjacent resources, not just the input-handling component.
• Threat profile: This is most dangerous for organizations with broad privileged access (many admins, external integrators, over-permissioned service accounts) and for internet-exposed AEM instances. It is a post-authentication RCE, so its exploitation value is highest in targeted/intrusion operations where the adversary already holds a privileged account, rather than in automated opportunistic scanning.
• Regulatory/exposure considerations: Arbitrary code execution in a CMS-adjacent platform can expose customer data, published content integrity, and downstream applications, raising GDPR/CCPA and sector-specific compliance exposure. No CISA KEV listing exists, and no exploit-in-the-wild evidence has been supplied, so current real-world exploitation is unconfirmed.

Detection Guidance

No PoC exists, so detection must be behavior- and class-based rather than signature-specific. The rules below target anomalous privileged AEM activity and generic input-validation/RCE exploitation patterns; tune thresholds and field mappings to your environment.

Sigma Rule

title: Suspicious High-Privilege Adobe Experience Manager Activity Indicative of CVE-2026-106626
id: 7c9f0e2a-4b1d-4e6a-9f3c-cve2026106626
status: experimental
description: Detects anomalous privileged AEM requests/process execution consistent with an improper-input-validation RCE (CWE-20)
author: valtersit.com
references:
  - https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-106626
tags:
  - attack.t1190
  - attack.execution
logsource:
  category: webserver
detection:
  selection_method:
    cs-method: ['POST', 'PUT']
  selection_path:
    cs-uri-stem|contains:
      - '/bin/'
      - '/libs/'
      - '/apps/'
      - '/crx/'
  selection_suspicious_input:
    cs-uri-query|contains:
      - '../'
      - '${'
      - '%24%7B'
      - 'Runtime'
      - 'ProcessBuilder'
  condition: selection_method and selection_path and selection_suspicious_input
falsepositives:
  - Legitimate administrative or integration traffic with unusual payloads
level: high

YARA Rule

rule CVE_2026_106626_AEM_Improper_Input_Validation_RCE
{
    meta:
        description = "Generic detection of exploitation artifacts for CVE-2026-106626 (AEM CWE-20 RCE)"
        author = "valtersit.com"
        reference = "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-106626"
        date = "2026-01-01"
    strings:
        $aem1 = "Adobe Experience Manager" ascii nocase
        $aem2 = "granite" ascii nocase
        $susp1 = "Runtime.getRuntime" ascii
        $susp2 = "ProcessBuilder" ascii
        $susp3 = "javax.script" ascii
        $susp4 = "${" ascii
    condition:
        uint16(0) == 0x4D5A or
        (filesize < 5MB and any of ($aem*) and any of ($susp*))
}

Suricata IDS Rule

alert http any any -> any any (msg:"CVE-2026-106626 Possible Adobe Experience Manager Improper Input Validation Exploitation"; flow:established,to_server; http.method; content:"POST"; http.uri; content:"/bin/"; http.uri; content:"${"; sid:2026106626; rev:1; metadata:created_at 2026_01_01, cve CVE-2026-106626; classtype:attempted-admin; reference:url,nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-106626;)

Elastic Detection

sequence by user.name with maxspan=5m
  [ network where network.protocol == "http" and http.request.method in ("POST","PUT") and
      url.path : ("/bin/*" or "/libs/*" or "/apps/*" or "/crx/*") and
      url.query : ("../*" or "*${*" or "*Runtime*" or "*ProcessBuilder*") ]
  [ process where event.type == "start" and process.parent.name : ("java","java.exe") and
      process.name : ("sh","bash","cmd.exe","powershell.exe","curl","wget") ]

Splunk SPL Query

index=web sourcetype=access_combined
| eval uri=coalesce(uri, cs_uri_stem, url)
| eval qs=coalesce(uri_query, cs_uri_query)
| where match(uri,"(?i)/(bin|libs|apps|crx)/")
| where match(qs,"(\.\./|\$\{|Runtime|ProcessBuilder|javax\.script)")
| stats count min(_time) as first_seen max(_time) as last_seen values(uri) as paths by src_ip, host, status
| where count > 3
| sort - count
| table first_seen, last_seen, src_ip, host, count, status, paths

Wazuh OSSEC Rule

<group name="adobe_aem,cve-2026-106626,web,">
  <rule id="1066260" level="12">
    <decoded_as>web-accesslog</decoded_as>
    <url>/bin/|/libs/|/apps/|/crx/</url>
    <regex type="pcre2">(?i)(\.\./|\$\{|Runtime|ProcessBuilder|javax\.script)</regex>
    <description>CVE-2026-106626: Possible Adobe Experience Manager improper input validation exploitation attempt</description>
    <mitre>
      <id>T1190</id>
    </mitre>
    <group>attack,exploit_attempt,</group>
  </rule>
</group>

Mitigation & Patch Guidance

Patch confidence: 0/4 (UNPATCHED — no patch evidence from any tracked source). No vendor advisory, hotfix, or fixed version is available in the provided intelligence. The steps below are defensive and intelligence-driven, not a confirmed vendor remediation.

1. Immediate mitigations

   • Restrict and tightly audit privileged AEM accounts. Because PR:H is required, reducing the population and scope of high-privilege users directly reduces exposure. Enforce least privilege and remove standing admin rights where possible.
   • Limit network exposure of AEM author/admin surfaces. Do not expose privileged AEM endpoints directly to the internet; place them behind VPN, zero-trust proxies, or IP allow-listing. Only publish (public-facing) instances should be broadly reachable, and they should be hardened separately.
   • Enforce MFA and session controls on all privileged AEM accounts to complicate credential-based preconditions.
   • Monitor and alert on anomalous privileged requests (see Detection Guidance) and on unexpected process execution spawned by the AEM Java process.
   • Apply virtual patching at the WAF/reverse-proxy layer for malformed input patterns targeting AEM handlers (defense in depth; not a substitute for a real fix).

2. Patch / upgrade steps

   • No patch is available from tracked sources. Establish a vendor contact/monitoring channel for Adobe Experience Manager security bulletins and check Adobe's official security advisory page regularly for a fixed version or hotfix associated with CVE-2026-106626.
   • When a fix is released: inventory all AEM instances and versions, stage the update in a non-production environment, validate, then roll out to all affected instances with priority given to internet-facing and privileged-access deployments.
   • Until a fix exists, formally accept and document the residual risk and the compensating controls in place.

3. Long-term hardening

   • Adopt a continuous patch-management program for AEM, including version inventory and expiry of unsupported releases.
   • Systematically reduce the attack surface: remove unused AEM services/handlers, disable default accounts, and enforce strong access segmentation between author, publish, and admin tiers.
   • Deploy application-level monitoring that specifically tracks privileged-account activity and process-spawning by the AEM runtime.
   • Maintain an emergency change process for critical (9.x) CVEs to enable rapid mitigation even when a vendor patch is delayed.
   • Conduct periodic red-team exercises against privileged AEM workflows to validate detection coverage for post-authentication RCE scenarios.

References

• NVD — CVE-2026-106626: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-106626
• Adobe Security Advisories (Adobe Experience Manager): https://helpx.adobe.com/security.html
• MITRE CWE-20 — Improper Input Validation: https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html
• MITRE ATT&CK T1190 — Exploit Public-Facing Application: https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1190/
• CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog (check for inclusion): https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog

Threat actor / exploit-in-the-wild status: No CISA KEV listing, no public PoC, and no exploit-in-the-wild evidence are associated with CVE-2026-106626 in the provided intelligence. Exploitation cannot currently be confirmed in the wild.