Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-27406 is a high-severity Cross-site Scripting (CWE-79) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 7.6 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Browser Session Hijacking (T1185); ranked at the 23th 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 AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) — 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.
CVE-2025-27406 is a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability, associated with CWE-79 and CWE-918, affecting the Icinga Reporting module, a central component for reporting functionality in the Icinga Web 2 monitoring web frontend and framework. The flaw exists in versions 0.10.0 through 1.0.2, where attackers can create templates that embed arbitrary JavaScript code.
Exploitation requires network access, high privileges (PR:H), user interaction (UI:R), and high attack complexity (AC:H), as indicated by the CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.6 with changed scope (S:C) and high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. A high-privileged attacker can set up a malicious template; if a victim previews it, the embedded JavaScript executes in the user's context, allowing actions on the user's behalf. If a report using the template is printed to PDF, the JavaScript executes in the context of the headless browser, potentially enabling server-side request forgery or other actions.
The issue is fixed in Icinga Reporting version 1.0.3. As a workaround, administrators should review all templates and remove any suspicious settings. Additional details are available in the module's release notes at https://github.com/Icinga/icingaweb2-module-reporting/releases/tag/v1.0.3 and the security advisory at https://github.com/Icinga/icingaweb2-module-reporting/security/advisories/GHSA-7qvq-54vm-r7hx.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-8228
Vulnerability Data
Icinga Reporting is the central component for reporting related functionality in the monitoring web frontend and framework Icinga Web 2. A vulnerability present in versions 0.10.0 through 1.0.2 allows to set up a template that allows to embed arbitrary Javascript.…
more
This enables the attacker to act on behalf of the user, if the template is being previewed; and act on behalf of the headless browser, if a report using the template is printed to PDF. This issue has been resolved in version 1.0.3 of Icinga Reporting. As a workaround, review all templates and remove suspicious settings.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.1.2V1.3.2V1.3.6V1.5.3
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement can restrict which destinations the server is allowed to contact on behalf of users.
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.
Boundary protection limits the network reach of server-initiated requests even if SSRF occurs.
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).
Runtime monitoring of web applications and services can detect anomalous outbound requests indicative of SSRF.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record SSRF flaws in web applications.
Network segmentation and egress controls can limit the damage from successful SSRF requests.
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.
Webpage malware scanning and block-listing of known malicious sites reduce the likelihood that reflected or stored script payloads reach a user’s browser.