GHSA-6x92-6vx4-5fwr is a medium-severity (CVSS 6.5) CWE-639 vulnerability in django-cms. O3 Security confirms whether GHSA-6x92-6vx4-5fwr is actually reachable in your code before you act, and blocks exploitation at runtime until you patch.
django CMS: Broken access control in page *Duplicate* allows reading the content of any page (cross-site / restriction bypass)
Real-World Exposure
django-cmsReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects PyPI packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
Impact
The only authorization gate on the duplicate flow is PageAdmin.has_add_permission,
which checks user_can_add_page(user, site) / user_can_add_subpage(...) — i.e. “may
this user create a page at all”. Nothing checks the user’s relationship to the page being
copied:
cms/admin/forms.py—DuplicatePageForm.source = ModelChoiceField(queryset=Page.objects.all(), widget=HiddenInput())spans every page in the database, on every site.cms/admin/forms.py—AddPageForm.__init__returns early when thesourcewidget is hidden, so the queryset is never narrowed to the user’s site/subtree.cms/admin/forms.py—AddPageForm.clean()validates only URL uniqueness;sourceis never validated against the user.cms/admin/pageadmin.py—duplicate()seedssourcefrom the URL only on GET; on POST the value comes entirely from the request body.cms/admin/forms.py—AddPageForm.save()→from_source()performssource.copy(..., permissions=False)and copies every placeholder and all plugins ofsourceinto a new page on the attacker’s site. Becausepermissions=Falsedrops the source’s view restrictions, the resulting copy is fully readable by the attacker.
This crosses a real privilege boundary: a staff user restricted (via CMS_PERMISSION) to
their own site or subtree can exfiltrate the content of restricted pages and of pages
belonging to other tenants.
Read-back is trivial (verified): the copy is created on the attacker’s site and, because
copy(..., permissions=False) strips the source’s view restrictions, the new page is
unrestricted. user_can_view_page() then returns True for it (unrestricted +
PUBLIC_FOR), so the attacker — or even an anonymous visitor — can read the duplicated
content directly from the front end. No further permission on the new page is required.
Proof of concept
- Log in as a staff user
attackerwho has add page permission but no view/change permission on a target (secret / other-site) pageSECRET_ID. - Send (the URL
<id>only needs to be aPageContentthe attacker can already see — e.g. one of their own pages; the victim id goes in the POST body):
POST /admin/cms/pagecontent/<MY_OWN_PAGECONTENT_ID>/duplicate/ HTTP/1.1
Cookie: sessionid=<attacker session>
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
csrfmiddlewaretoken=...&title=x&slug=x&language=en&source=<SECRET_ID>
- A new, unrestricted page is created under the attacker’s site containing a verbatim copy of the secret page’s plugins, which the attacker can now preview/edit/read.
Patches
Enforce an object-level permission check on source:
class DuplicatePageForm(AddPageForm):
source = forms.ModelChoiceField(
queryset=Page.objects.all(),
required=True,
widget=forms.HiddenInput(),
)
def clean_source(self):
source = self.cleaned_data.get("source")
if source and not user_can_view_page(self._user, source):
raise ValidationError(_("You do not have permission to copy this page."))
return source
(user_can_view_page is imported from cms.utils.page_permissions.)
Workarounds
Until patched, restrict access to the cms.add_page permission to fully-trusted staff, or
disable the duplicate action for delegated/limited editors.
References
cms/admin/pageadmin.py—duplicate(),has_add_permission(),get_urls()cms/admin/forms.py—DuplicatePageForm,AddPageForm.__init__/clean/save/from_source- Regression tests:
cms/tests/test_forms.py::DuplicatePageFormSecurityTestCase
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | django-cms | all versions | 5.0.9 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for django-cms. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.
Fix
Update django-cms to 5.0.9 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-6x92-6vx4-5fwr is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
How O3 protects you
O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-6x92-6vx4-5fwr is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.
Tailored to GHSA-6x92-6vx4-5fwr. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-6x92-6vx4-5fwr in your dependencies?
O3 detects GHSA-6x92-6vx4-5fwr across PyPI dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.