Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:NSummary
CVE-2025-67724 is a medium-severity Cross-site Scripting (CWE-79) vulnerability in Tornadoweb Tornado. Its CVSS base score is 5.4 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Browser Session Hijacking (T1185); ranked at the 15th 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-2025-203032
Vulnerability Data
Tornado is a Python web framework and asynchronous networking library. In versions 6.5.2 and below, the supplied reason phrase is used unescaped in HTTP headers (where it could be used for header injection) or in HTML in the default error…
more
page (where it could be used for XSS) and can be exploited by passing untrusted or malicious data into the reason argument. Used by both RequestHandler.set_status and tornado.web.HTTPError, the argument is designed to allow applications to pass custom "reason" phrases (the "Not Found" in HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found) to the HTTP status line (mainly for non-standard status codes). This issue is fixed in version 6.5.3.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V4.2.3V1.1.2V1.3.2
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.
Application security requirements explicitly call for neutralizing untrusted data in HTTP headers.
Secure architecture principles reduce injection surfaces but do not prescribe header-specific controls.