GHSA-crhf-3pfg-w68w BIT-django-2026-53877 CVE-2026-53877 PYSEC-2026-2091
Django: GDALRaster may over-read heap memory when constructed from bytes
Medium
PyPI
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.53%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 44.64% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-805 Buffer Access with Incorrect Length Value
- Fix
5.2.16- Upgrade django to this version or later
Description
An issue was discovered in Django 6.0 before 6.0.7 and 5.2 before 5.2.16.
django.contrib.gis.gdal.GDALRaster over-reads its in-memory buffer when constructed from a bytes object, which can disclose adjacent memory or cause service degradation via a potential segmentation fault when the vsi_buffer property is accessed.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.
Django would like to thank Bence Nagy for reporting this issue.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| django | < 5.2.16 |
5.2.16 |
| django | >= 6.0.0, < 6.0.7 |
6.0.7 |
| django | >= 5.2, < 5.2.16>= 6.0, < 6.0.7 |
5.2.166.0.7 |
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 → 5.2.16
- pip
pip install --upgrade "django>=5.2.16"- poetry
poetry add "django>=5.2.16"- uv
uv add "django>=5.2.16"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- Present
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 4.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-805: Buffer Access with Incorrect Length Value
The product uses a sequential operation to read or write a buffer, but it uses an incorrect length value that causes it to access memory that is outside of the bounds of the buffer.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
- 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. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
- Operation, Build and Compilation: Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.
- Implementation: Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application's memory: Double check that the buffer is as large as specified. When using functions that accept a number of bytes to copy, such as strncpy(), be aware that if the destination buffer size is equal to the source buffer size, it may not NULL-terminate the string. Check buffer boundaries if accessing the buffer in a loop and make sure there is no danger of writing past the allocated space. If necessary, truncate all input strings to a reasonable length before passing them to the copy and concatenation functions.
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Operation, Build and Compilation: Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program's executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code. Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as "rebasing" (for Windows) and "prelinking" (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking. For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].
- Operation: Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment. For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].
- 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 product 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
Fixes and patches
Other links
- github.com/django/django/commit/38dfbd27d7d4f4e6eaa087d7a90f2613fbf55b3a
- github.com/django/django/commit/6c66eb8cec52b303af85c2c6e4dd00aa37654dbc
- github.com/django/django/commit/6ca2bbe2efce21010eff48f1f36a3f621d698ed8
- docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/releases/security
- github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/django/PYSEC-2026-2091.yaml
- groups.google.com/g/django-announce
- djangoproject.com/weblog/2026/jul/07/security-releases
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| 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-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 |
| GHSA-923m-gv2p-w5qp Django: has_vary_header may expose cached responses when Vary values contain whitespace | Medium | Also affects django |
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