Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-52595 is a high-severity Cross-site Scripting (CWE-79) vulnerability in Fedoralovespython Lxml Html Clean. Its CVSS base score is 7.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Browser Session Hijacking (T1185); ranked at the 39th 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and 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-2024-0206
Vulnerability Data
lxml_html_clean is a project for HTML cleaning functionalities copied from `lxml.html.clean`. Prior to version 0.4.0, the HTML Parser in lxml does not properly handle context-switching for special HTML tags such as `<svg>`, `<math>` and `<noscript>`. This behavior deviates from how…
more
web browsers parse and interpret such tags. Specifically, content in CSS comments is ignored by lxml_html_clean but may be interpreted differently by web browsers, enabling malicious scripts to bypass the cleaning process. This vulnerability could lead to Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attacks, compromising the security of users relying on lxml_html_clean in default configuration for sanitizing untrusted HTML content. Users employing the HTML cleaner in a security-sensitive context should upgrade to lxml 0.4.0, which addresses this issue. As a temporary mitigation, users can configure lxml_html_clean with the following settings to prevent the exploitation of this vulnerability. Via `remove_tags`, one may specify tags to remove - their content is moved to their parents' tags. Via `kill_tags`, one may specify tags to be removed completely. Via `allow_tags`, one may restrict the set of permissible tags, excluding context-switching tags like `<svg>`, `<math>` and `<noscript>`.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 2 hardening rules · 1 OS baseline
V3.5.2V4.4.2V16.2.5V1.1.2
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 standards require proper escaping of untrusted data in HTML attributes, directly eliminating CWE-83.
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.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including attribute-based script injection.