Skip to content

GHSA-5j2h-h5hg-3wf8 CVE-2011-0696 PYSEC-2011-10 PYSEC-2011-30

Cross-site request forgery in Django

High PyPI
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
1.60%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 75.83% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Fix
1.1.4
Upgrade django to this version or later

Description

Django 1.1.x before 1.1.4 and 1.2.x before 1.2.5 does not properly validate HTTP requests that contain an X-Requested-With header, which makes it easier for remote attackers to conduct cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks via forged AJAX requests that leverage a "combination of browser plugins and redirects," a related issue to CVE-2011-0447.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
django
>= 1.1, < 1.1.4
1.1.4
django
>= 1.2, < 1.2.5
1.2.5
django
>= 1.1, < 1.1.4
>= 1.2, < 1.2.5
1.1.4
1.2.5
django
>= 1.1, < 1.1.4
>= 1.2, < 1.2.5
1.1.4
1.2.5

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.

django PyPI → 1.1.4

pip
pip install --upgrade "django>=1.1.4"
poetry
poetry add "django>=1.1.4"
uv
uv add "django>=1.1.4"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.

How to prevent it
  • 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 [REF-1482]. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
  • Implementation: Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
  • Architecture and Design: Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
  • Architecture and Design: Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
  • Architecture and Design: Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller: When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same. Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult. This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
  • Architecture and Design: Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
  • Implementation: Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-q238-5cxm-5c9h
Django GeoDjango vulnerable to denial of service through deeply nested geometry collections
Medium Also affects django
GHSA-wvqv-fj8w-qmhm
Django GeoDjango spatial lookups allow file writes and outbound requests through GDAL raster parsing
High Also affects django
GHSA-8qcx-xf44-272x
Django: DomainNameValidator permits newline characters that may enable HTTP header injection
Medium Also affects django
GHSA-crhf-3pfg-w68w
Django: GDALRaster may over-read heap memory when constructed from bytes
Medium Also affects django
GHSA-3h9f-r86x-qvjx
Django: cache middleware may expose private responses when unrelated request cookies are present
Medium Also affects django
GHSA-8cjm-8mp7-r2xf
Django: UpdateCacheMiddleware may disclose cached responses due to case-sensitive Cache-Control handling
Medium Also affects django
GHSA-mm6v-q8q9-pgcf
Django fails to prevent reuse of a partially-initialized connection after a failed `STARTTLS` handshake
Low Also affects django
GHSA-h7pc-vwp9-298g
Django: signed cookies are vulnerable to salt namespace collisions
Medium Also affects django
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