Skip to content

GHSA-4qvv-g3vr-m348 CVE-2026-25517 PYSEC-2026-2030

Wagtail has improper permission handling on admin preview endpoints

Low PyPI
Severity
0.0 / 10
Low · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.38%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 32.52% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
6.3.6
Upgrade wagtail to this version or later

Description

Impact

Due to a missing permission check on the preview endpoints, a user with access to the Wagtail admin and knowledge of a model's fields can craft a form submission to obtain a preview rendering of any page, snippet or site setting object for which previews are enabled, consisting of any data of the user's choosing. The existing data of the object itself is not exposed, but depending on the nature of the template being rendered, this may expose other database contents that would otherwise only be accessible to users with edit access over the model. The vulnerability is not exploitable by an ordinary site visitor without access to the Wagtail admin.

Patches

Patched versions have been released as Wagtail 6.3.6, 7.0.4, 7.1.3 and 7.2.2. The new 7.3 feature release also incorporates this fix.

Workarounds

No workaround is available.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to @thxtech for reporting this issue.

For more information

If there are any questions or comments about this advisory:

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
wagtail
< 6.3.6
6.3.6
wagtail
>= 6.4rc1, < 7.0.4
7.0.4
wagtail
>= 7.1rc1, < 7.1.3
7.1.3
wagtail
>= 7.2rc1, < 7.2.2
7.2.2
wagtail
>= 7.3rc1, < 7.3
7.3
wagtail
< 6.3.6
>= 6.4rc1, < 7.0.4
>= 7.1rc1, < 7.1.3
>= 7.2rc1, < 7.2.2
>= 7.3rc1, < 7.3
6.3.6
7.0.4
7.1.3
7.2.2
7.3

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

wagtail PyPI → 6.3.6

pip
pip install --upgrade "wagtail>=6.3.6"
poetry
poetry add "wagtail>=6.3.6"
uv
uv add "wagtail>=6.3.6"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
High
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
Low
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 2.7

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
High
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
None
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-jm5p-837g-rv8g
Wagtail: Improper restriction handling on Page translation API endpoint
Medium Also affects wagtail
GHSA-x5cx-w6p2-mxf2
Wagtail: Improper permission handling when copying snippets
Medium Also affects wagtail
GHSA-c2xx-cjmh-9q8f
Wagtail: Improper restriction handling on descendant collections in Documents and Images API
Medium Also affects wagtail
GHSA-92hv-j533-69wc
Wagtail: Identification of documents by SHA1 hash
Low Also affects wagtail
GHSA-3vrh-m9w7-v94f
Wagtail: Improper restriction handling on Pages admin API
Medium Also affects wagtail
GHSA-23m2-mghx-vqmf
Wagtail: Reflected XSS in dynamic image URL generator view
High Also affects wagtail
GHSA-8634-mr4j-r72c
Wagtail: Pages translations can be created without page permissions when using simple_translation
Medium Also affects wagtail
GHSA-r6p4-grq7-xm4m
Wagtail: Improper permission handling in image preview
Medium Also affects wagtail
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor