VulnerabilityPublished 4 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-15920: djangoproject Django · Improper Neutralization of Script in Attributes in a Web Page

Affects djangoproject DjangoSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.1 Medium : upgrade to 6.0.8 or 5.2.17 when convenient.

Data as of 3 Nov 2026, 22:58 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 29% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.0.8, 5.2.17

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to 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 4 Aug 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 3 Nov 2026.

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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity 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 Django and django to 6.0.8 or 5.2.17.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
djangoprojectDjango	Affected >=6.0 <6.0.8	Fixed in 6.0.8
djangoprojectDjango	Affected >=5.2 <5.2.17	Fixed in 5.2.17
PyPIdjango`pkg:pypi/django`Other threats	Affected >=6.0 <6.0.8 >=5.2 <5.2.17	Fixed in 6.0.8 5.2.17

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

AI-suggested

A fix is available in Django versions 5.2.17 and 6.0.8 and later. Users should upgrade to these or newer versions to remediate this vulnerability. Until upgraded, ensure that URLField data is always validated through model validation before being saved to the database to prevent unsafe URL schemes from being stored. Avoid direct database writes or bulk imports of untrusted URLField data without validation.

Description

An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.17 and 6.0 before 6.0.8. `django.contrib.admin.utils.display_for_field()` renders `URLField` values as clickable links in the admin without validating the URL. A value stored with an unsafe scheme is displayed as a link on changelist and read-only admin pages, which allows cross-site scripting against staff users who click the link. Exploitation requires the unsafe value to already be stored in the database. `URLField` validation through a `ModelForm` or the admin rejects unsafe schemes, so this affects applications that persist `URLField` data without running model validation, for example through direct queryset writes, deserialization, or bulk import of untrusted input. Django would like to thank Egor Saltykov for reporting this issue.

Impact

Successful exploitation can lead to cross-site scripting attacks against staff users of the Django admin interface, potentially allowing attackers to execute arbitrary scripts in the context of the admin user's browser session. This can result in information disclosure or session hijacking. However, exploitation requires that unsafe URL values are already stored in the database, which is prevented by standard model validation in forms and the admin interface. Therefore, the impact is limited to applications that persist URLField data without validation.

CWE-83Improper Neutralization of Script in Attributes in a Web Page (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes "javascript:" or other URIs from dangerous attributes within tags, such as onmouseover, onload, onerror, or style.
Implementation
Carefully check each input parameter against a rigorous positive specification (allowlist) defining the specific characters and format allowed. All input should be neutralized, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including tag attributes, hidden fields, cookies,…
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
With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XSS Targeting HTML Attributes (opens in a new tab)
XSS Targeting URI Placeholders (opens in a new tab)
DOM-Based XSS (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 11 Aug 2026, 18:13 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-83

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats