VulnerabilityPublished 16 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-61593: djust · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Affects djustSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High : upgrade to 1.0.7 soon.

Data as of 31 Oct 2026, 08:20 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.0.7

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 16 Sep 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 30 Oct 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 djust and djust-org/djust to 1.0.7.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
djust-orgdjust	Affected <1.0.7	Fixed in 1.0.7
GitHubdjust-org/djust`pkg:github/djust-org/djust`Other threats	Affected <1.0.7	Fixed in 1.0.7

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

AI-suggested

This vulnerability is fixed in djust version 1.0.7. Users should upgrade to version 1.0.7 or later to ensure all SSE endpoints validate the Origin header and enforce Content-Type requirements on POST requests. As a temporary workaround, disabling the SSE transport or placing a proxy in front of the service that enforces an Origin allowlist can mitigate the risk.

Description

djust provides Phoenix LiveView-style reactive server-side rendering for Django with Rust-powered performance. Prior to version 1.0.7, the SSE client→server POST endpoints are `@csrf_exempt` and the SSE GET stream endpoint had no Origin check, so a cross-origin page could drive a victim-cookie-authenticated SSE session: force the victim's browser to GET the stream URL (which creates and mounts a LiveView as the victim) and POST to the message endpoint with `credentials: include` to fire state-changing event handlers as the victim. The URL `session_id` is client-chosen (validated only for UUID *format*), so it is not a CSRF token, and a JSON body sent as `text/plain` is a CORS simple request with no preflight. The issue is fixed in 1.0.7. All three SSE endpoints validate the request `Origin` against `ALLOWED_HOSTS` (mirroring the WebSocket CSWSH defense) and reject cross-origin requests with 403; the POST endpoints additionally require `Content-Type: application/json` (415 otherwise), closing the `text/plain` simple-request bypass. As a workaround, disable the SSE transport, or front it with a proxy that enforces an Origin allowlist.

Impact

An attacker can exploit this vulnerability to perform unauthorized state-changing actions on behalf of an authenticated user by leveraging cross-origin requests. This can lead to compromise of user session integrity and unauthorized operations within the djust application context. The CVSS 3.1 score of 8.1 reflects high impact on confidentiality and integrity, with no impact on availability.

Summary

djust is a Django reactive server-side rendering tool with Rust-powered performance. Before version 1.0.7, its SSE client-to-server POST endpoints were marked @csrf_exempt, and the SSE GET stream endpoint did not validate the Origin header. This allowed a cross-origin attacker to induce a victim's browser, authenticated via cookies, to initiate SSE sessions and send POST requests with credentials included, triggering state-changing event handlers. The session_id parameter is client-chosen and only format-validated, not serving as a CSRF token. The POST requests used a text/plain content type, which is a CORS simple request and bypassed preflight checks. The fix in 1.0.7 adds Origin validation against ALLOWED_HOSTS for all SSE endpoints and requires POST requests to have Content-Type: application/json, blocking the previous bypass. Workarounds include disabling SSE transport or proxying with an Origin allowlist.

CWE-352Cross-Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Compound weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #3OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
Architecture and Design
Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Identification (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (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 16 Sep 2026, 16:16 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats