GHSA-pwjp-ccjc-ghwg BIT-django-2026-4277 CVE-2026-4277 PYSEC-2026-52
Django vulnerable to privilege abuse in GenericInlineModelAdmin
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.46%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 39.75% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-862 Missing Authorization
- Fix
6.0.4- Upgrade django to this version or later
Description
An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.4, 5.2 before 5.2.13, and 4.2 before 4.2.30. Add permissions on inline model instances were not validated on submission of forged POST data in GenericInlineModelAdmin.
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 N05ec@LZU-DSLab for reporting this issue.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| django | >= 6.0, < 6.0.4 |
6.0.4 |
| django | >= 5.2, < 5.2.13 |
5.2.13 |
| django | >= 4.2, < 4.2.30 |
4.2.30 |
| django | >= 4.2, < 4.2.30>= 5.2, < 5.2.13>= 6.0, < 6.0.4 |
4.2.305.2.136.0.4 |
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 → 6.0.4
- pip
pip install --upgrade "django>=6.0.4"- poetry
poetry add "django>=6.0.4"- uv
uv add "django>=6.0.4"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- Present
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 9.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-862: Missing Authorization
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
- 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. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
- Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
- System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
References
Advisories
Fixes and patches
Packages
Other links
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-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 |
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