GHSA-mjgh-79qc-68w3 BIT-django-2026-25674 CVE-2026-25674 PYSEC-2026-2449

Django has a Race Condition vulnerability

Low PyPI

Severity: 3.7 / 10; Low · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.37%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 31.22% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-362 Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')
Fix: 6.0.3; Upgrade django to this version or later

Description

An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.3, 5.2 before 5.2.12, and 4.2 before 4.2.29.

Race condition in file-system storage and file-based cache backends in Django allows an attacker to cause file system objects to be created with incorrect permissions via concurrent requests, where one thread's temporary umask change affects other threads in multi-threaded environments.

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 Tarek Nakkouch for reporting this issue.

Affected versions

PyPI

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
django	`>= 6.0, < 6.0.3`	`6.0.3`
django	`>= 5.2, < 5.2.12`	`5.2.12`
django	`>= 4.2, < 4.2.29`	`4.2.29`
django	`>= 4.2, < 4.2.29` `>= 5.2, < 5.2.12` `>= 6.0, < 6.0.3`	`4.2.29` `5.2.12` `6.0.3`

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.

django PyPI → `6.0.3`

pip

pip install --upgrade "django>=6.0.3"

poetry

poetry add "django>=6.0.3"

uv

uv add "django>=6.0.3"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 3.7

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

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

Weakness

CWE-362: Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')

The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design: In languages that support it, use synchronization primitives. Only wrap these around critical code to minimize the impact on performance.
Architecture and Design: Use thread-safe capabilities such as the data access abstraction in Spring.
Architecture and Design: Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring. Additionally, this will minimize the amount of synchronization necessary and may even help to reduce the likelihood of a denial of service where an attacker may be able to repeatedly trigger a critical section (CWE-400).
Implementation: When using multithreading and operating on shared variables, only use thread-safe functions.
Implementation: Use atomic operations on shared variables. Be wary of innocent-looking constructs such as "x++". This may appear atomic at the code layer, but it is actually non-atomic at the instruction layer, since it involves a read, followed by a computation, followed by a write.
Implementation: Use a mutex if available, but be sure to avoid related weaknesses such as CWE-412.
Implementation: Avoid double-checked locking (CWE-609) and other implementation errors that arise when trying to avoid the overhead of synchronization.
Implementation: Disable interrupts or signals over critical parts of the code, but also make sure that the code does not go into a large or infinite loop.
Implementation: Use the volatile type modifier for critical variables to avoid unexpected compiler optimization or reordering. This does not necessarily solve the synchronization problem, but it can help.
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.

References

Advisories

Packages

Timeline

Mar 3, 2026 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