CVE-2025-48432VulnerabilityPublished 5 Jun 2025Updated 11 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-48432: djangoproject Django · Log Injection

Affects djangoproject DjangoSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.0 Medium · fixed in 5.2.3 : update djangoproject Django when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.0Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 54% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 5.2.3, 5.1.11, 4.2.23

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 5 Jun 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade djangoproject Django to 5.2.3, 5.1.11 or 4.2.23.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIdjango`pkg:pypi/django`Other threats	Affected <4.2.23 <5.1.11 <5.2.3	Fixed in 4.2.23 5.1.11 5.2.3

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

1. Upgrade Django to the fixed versions: 4.2.23, 5.1.11, or 5.2.3 as soon as possible to ensure the logging mechanism properly escapes request paths. 2. In the interim, implement log sanitization at the logging aggregation or SIEM level to detect and neutralize suspicious log entries that may indicate injection attempts. 3. Restrict access to logs and ensure that log viewers or terminals used to inspect logs properly handle escape sequences to prevent log forging or terminal manipulation. 4. Monitor web server and application logs for unusual URL patterns that could indicate attempts to exploit this vulnerability. 5. Educate security and operations teams about the risks of log injection and encourage validation of log data during incident investigations. 6. Consider deploying web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block suspicious URL patterns that could be used to exploit this vulnerability. 7. Review and harden log processing pipelines to ensure that external systems consuming logs are resilient to malformed or malicious log entries.

Description

An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.3, 5.1 before 5.1.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.23. Internal HTTP response logging does not escape request.path, which allows remote attackers to potentially manipulate log output via crafted URLs. This may lead to log injection or forgery when logs are viewed in terminals or processed by external systems.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact primarily concerns the integrity and reliability of security logs generated by Django-based applications. Since logs are essential for detecting, analyzing, and responding to security incidents, any manipulation can degrade an organization's ability to respond effectively to attacks. This can lead to delayed detection of breaches or misattribution of malicious activity. Organizations in sectors with strict compliance requirements (e.g., finance, healthcare, government) may face regulatory scrutiny if log integrity is compromised. Additionally, if logs are forwarded to centralized logging or SIEM systems, the injected entries could propagate, affecting broader security monitoring capabilities. While the vulnerability does not directly expose sensitive data or cause service disruption, the undermining of log trustworthiness can have cascading effects on overall security posture and incident management processes.

CWE-117Improper Output Neutralization for Logs (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A09:2025: Security Logging & Alerting Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a log message from external input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements when the message is written to a log file.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Implementation · Output Encoding
Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8.
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Content Security Policy (opens in a new tab)
Application Logging Vocabulary (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V7.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V14.4.6 (opens in a new tab)
V14.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Audit Log Manipulation (opens in a new tab)
Web Server Logs Tampering (opens in a new tab)
Log Injection-Tampering-Forging (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 03:25 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-117

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats