VulnerabilityPublished 3 Jun 2026

CVE-2026-6873: djangoproject Django · Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

Affects djangoproject DjangoSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.1 Low : upgrade to 6.0.6 or 5.2.15 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.1Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 15% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.0.6, 5.2.15

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 3 Jun 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 Django and django to 6.0.6 or 5.2.15.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
djangoprojectDjango	Affected >=6.0 <6.0.6	Fixed in 6.0.6
djangoprojectDjango	Affected >=5.2 <5.2.15	Fixed in 5.2.15
PyPIdjango`pkg:pypi/django`Other threats	Affected =5.2 =6.0	Fixed in–
PyPIdjango`pkg:pypi/django`Other threats	Affected >=6.0 <6.0.6 >=5.2 <5.2.15	Fixed in 6.0.6 5.2.15

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

AI-suggested

Avoid relying on the affected versions (=6.0, =5.2) for sensitive cookie signing until a fix is released. No other specific mitigations are indicated by the vendor advisory.

Description

CVE-2026-6873 is a low-severity vulnerability in Django versions 6.0 and 5.2 where the get_signed_cookie function uses a non-injective salt derivation method. This flaw allows an attacker to reuse a signed cookie in a different context by exploiting distinct (name, salt) pairs that produce the same concatenation. The issue affects Django 6.0 before 6.0.6 and 5.2 before 5.2.15, with earlier unsupported versions possibly also affected.

Impact

The impact is limited to confidentiality as the vulnerability allows an attacker to reuse a signed cookie in an unintended context, potentially bypassing intended cookie validation boundaries. There is no indication of integrity or availability impact. The CVSS score of 3.1 reflects a low severity with network attack vector, high attack complexity, low privileges required, and no user interaction needed.

Summary

The vulnerability in Django's django.http.HttpRequest.get_signed_cookie arises from the use of a non-injective salt derivation approach, which concatenates the cookie name and salt argument. This design flaw enables a remote attacker to use a signed cookie in a context other than the one it was originally signed for by finding distinct (name, salt) pairs that yield the same concatenated value. The affected versions explicitly include Django 6.0 and 5.2, prior to versions 6.0.6 and 5.2.15 respectively. Earlier unsupported Django series such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x have not been evaluated but may also be vulnerable. The vulnerability is tracked as CWE-347 (Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature).

CWE-347Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V13.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Padding Oracle Crypto Attack (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (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 8 Aug 2026, 15:13 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-347

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats