GHSA-w26r-rmm8-9c29 — django
MEDIUMGHSA-w26r-rmm8-9c29 is a medium-severity (CVSS 5.3) CWE-130 vulnerability in django. A fix is available for django — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Django has an Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency
Exploitation Status
No confirmed exploitation observed yet
- CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-w26r-rmm8-9c29.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.
How urgent is this, really
GHSA-w26r-rmm8-9c29 plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 379,145 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.
Real-World Exposure
django🐍djangoReal-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
An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.5 and 5.2 before 5.2.14.
ASGI requests with a missing or understated Content-Length header can bypass the FILE_UPLOAD_MAX_MEMORY_SIZE limit, potentially loading large files into memory and causing service degradation.
As a reminder, Django expects a limit to be configured at the web server level rather than solely relying on FILE_UPLOAD_MAX_MEMORY_SIZE.
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 Kyle Agronick for reporting this issue.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | django | ≥ 6.0&&< 6.0.5 | 6.0.5pip install --upgrade 'django==6.0.5' |
| 🐍PyPI | django | ≥ 5.2&&< 5.2.14 | 5.2.14pip install --upgrade 'django==5.2.14' |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for django, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update django to 6.0.5 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-w26r-rmm8-9c29 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 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like GHSA-w26r-rmm8-9c29 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-w26r-rmm8-9c29. 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-w26r-rmm8-9c29 in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-w26r-rmm8-9c29 across PyPI dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.