GHSA-8x94-hmjh-97hq BIT-django-2022-36359 CVE-2022-36359 PYSEC-2022-245

Django vulnerable to Reflected File Download attack

High PyPI

Severity: 8.8 / 10; High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.94%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 60.79% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-494 Download of Code Without Integrity Check
Fix: 3.2.15; Upgrade django to this version or later

Description

An issue was discovered in the HTTP FileResponse class in Django 3.2 before 3.2.15 and 4.0 before 4.0.7. An application is vulnerable to a reflected file download (RFD) attack that sets the Content-Disposition header of a FileResponse when the filename is derived from user-supplied input.

Affected versions

PyPI

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
django	`< 3.2.15`	`3.2.15`
django	`>= 4.0, < 4.0.7`	`4.0.7`
django	`>= 3.2, < 3.2.15` `>= 4.0, < 4.0.7`	`3.2.15` `4.0.7`

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 → `3.2.15`

pip

pip install --upgrade "django>=3.2.15"

poetry

poetry add "django>=3.2.15"

uv

uv add "django>=3.2.15"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.8

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

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

Weakness

CWE-494: Download of Code Without Integrity Check

The product downloads source code or an executable from a remote location and executes the code without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code.

How to prevent it

Implementation: Perform proper forward and reverse DNS lookups to detect DNS spoofing.
Architecture and Design, Operation: Encrypt the code with a reliable encryption scheme before transmitting. This will only be a partial solution, since it will not detect DNS spoofing and it will not prevent your code from being modified on the hosting site.
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]. Speficially, it may be helpful to use tools or frameworks to perform integrity checking on the transmitted code. When providing the code that is to be downloaded, such as for automatic updates of the software, then use cryptographic signatures for the code and modify the download clients to verify the signatures. Ensure that the implementation does not contain CWE-295, CWE-320, CWE-347, and related weaknesses. Use code signing technologies such as Authenticode. See references [REF-454] [REF-455] [REF-456].
Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

References

Advisories

Write-ups

djangoproject.com/weblog/2022/aug/03/security-releases

Packages

github.com/django/django

Timeline

Aug 3, 2022 Published
Feb 4, 2026 Last updated by the source
Oct 31, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
GHSA-2x8x-jmrp-phxw Sinatra vulnerable to Reflected File Download attack	High	Linked by the source
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

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