GHSA-8qj2-c6q4-f399 is a medium-severity (CVSS 4.3) CWE-639 vulnerability in django-cms. A fix is available for django-cms — see the affected versions and patch details below.
django CMS: Missing authorization in `render_object_structure` discloses non-PageContent placeholder structure to low-privileged staff
Exploitation Status
Proof-of-concept exploit code exists
- CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-8qj2-c6q4-f399.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.
How urgent is this, really
GHSA-8qj2-c6q4-f399 by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). Outside the shaded patch-first corner.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 383,485 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Counts from FIRST.org, log-scaled.
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
Summary
The django-cms frontend-editing structure endpoint
GET /<lang>/admin/cms/placeholder/object/<content_type_id>/structure/<object_id>/
did not perform an object-level authorization check for non-PageContent objects. Any authenticated, active staff user could request the structure endpoint for a frontend-editable object (a model using PlaceholderRelationField) and read its placeholder/plugin structure, even without permission to change that object and without the cms.use_structure permission that the toolbar UI requires before offering structure mode.
PageContent objects were already protected (a page-view check added in GHSA/PR #8644); this advisory covers the remaining non-PageContent branch of the same view.
Severity
The issue is staff-gated and read-only, disclosing CMS structure metadata (placeholder slot names, plugin tree, plugin identifiers/labels, object existence) rather than write access or arbitrary field data.
Affected versions
- django-cms
>= 4.0.0, <= 5.0.xand5.1.0a1(the vulnerable non-PageContentbranch was introduced with the frontend-editing endpoints in 4.0)
Patched versions
- django-cms TODO: 5.0.9
Preconditions
- An authenticated, active staff account (
is_staff=True). - The deployment exposes a non-
PageContentmodel with django-cms placeholders / frontend editing (e.g. viaPlaceholderRelationField). - The attacker can guess or enumerate the target
content_type_idand object id. - The attacker needs no model/object change permission and no
cms.use_structurepermission.
Impact
A low-privileged staff user can read the editorial placeholder/plugin structure of non-PageContent objects they are not authorized to edit through the toolbar. Depending on the installed plugins and templates this may reveal placeholder names, plugin layout, plugin identifiers and the existence of objects owned by other staff users or teams. This is most relevant for deployments using third-party or custom django-cms apps that expose frontend-editable objects outside the page tree.
Proof of concept
Using django-cms' own test model placeholder_relation_field_app.FancyPoll (a non-PageContent model with a PlaceholderRelationField):
target = FancyPoll.objects.create(name="private-fancy-poll")
placeholder = rescan_placeholders_for_obj(target)["content"]
attacker = self._create_user("low_staff", is_staff=True, is_superuser=False)
# attacker has neither change_fancypoll nor cms.use_structure
with self.login_user_context(attacker):
response = self.client.get(get_object_structure_url(target, language="en"))
# Before fix: HTTP 200, body contains '"placeholder_id": "<pk>"'
# After fix: HTTP 404, structure not disclosed
Patch
render_object_structure now authorizes the non-PageContent branch, mirroring
Placeholder.has_change_permission at the object level (honouring a custom
has_placeholder_change_permission hook, otherwise falling back to the model/object
change permission) and returning 404 when the user is not authorized:
else:
content_type_obj = content_type.get_object_for_this_type(pk=object_id)
if not _can_change_placeholder_object(request.user, content_type_obj):
raise Http404
Workarounds
No configuration workaround. Deployments that do not register any non-PageContent
frontend-editable model are not affected. Otherwise, upgrade to a patched release.
Credit
Reported by doanmanhducz.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | django-cms | all versions | 5.0.9pip install --upgrade 'django-cms==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, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
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-8qj2-c6q4-f399 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
Put an independent control in front of the weakness: restrict the affected endpoint or interface to trusted networks, require an additional authentication factor or proxy-level check, and invalidate existing sessions and credentials in case the flaw has already been used.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-8qj2-c6q4-f399 in your dependencies?
Find it across PyPI, including transitive dependencies.