GHSA-7xr5-9hcq-chf9 BIT-django-2025-48432 CVE-2025-48432 PYSEC-2025-47

Django Improper Output Neutralization for Logs vulnerability

Medium PyPI

Severity: 4.0 / 10; Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.75%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 55.03% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-117 Improper Output Neutralization for Logs
Fix: 5.2.2; Upgrade django to this version or later

Description

An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.2, 5.1 before 5.1.10, and 4.2 before 4.2.22. Internal HTTP response logging does not escape request.path, which allows remote attackers to potentially manipulate log output via crafted URLs. This may lead to log injection or forgery when logs are viewed in terminals or processed by external systems.

Affected versions

PyPI

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
django	`>= 5.2, < 5.2.2`	`5.2.2`
django	`>= 5.0a1, < 5.1.10`	`5.1.10`
django	`< 4.2.22`	`4.2.22`
django	`>= 5.2, < 5.2.2` `>= 5.1, < 5.1.10` `>= 4.2, < 4.2.22`	`4.2.22` `5.1.10` `5.2.2`

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 → `5.2.2`

pip

pip install --upgrade "django>=5.2.2"

poetry

poetry add "django>=5.2.2"

uv

uv add "django>=5.2.2"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 4.0

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

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

Weakness

CWE-117: Improper Output Neutralization for Logs

The product constructs a log message from external input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements when the message is written to a log file.

How to prevent it

Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
Implementation: Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.
Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.

References

Advisories

Write-ups

djangoproject.com/weblog/2025/jun/04/security-releases

Packages

github.com/django/django

Timeline

Jun 5, 2025 Published
Sep 10, 2026 Last updated by the source
Oct 31, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why 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