VulnerabilityPublished 20 Aug 2026Updated 9 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-125105: Wagtail · Identification of documents by SHA1 hash

Affects wagtailSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-125105· Low 3.7

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.7 Low : upgrade to 7.0.9 when convenient.

Data as of 9 Nov 2026, 22:20 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.7Low

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (GitHub_M)	CVSS 3.1	3.7

Patch: Available – fixed in 7.0.9, 7.3.4, 7.4.3 +1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 9 Nov 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 9 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 to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIwagtail	Affected <7.0.9	Fixed in 7.0.9
PyPIwagtail	Affected >=7.1 <7.3.4	Fixed in 7.3.4
PyPIwagtail	Affected >=7.4 <7.4.3	Fixed in 7.4.3
PyPIwagtail	Affected >=8.0rc1 <8.0rc2 =8.0rc1	Fixed in 8.0rc2

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

Description

### Impact By passing specific HTTP headers to the document serve URL endpoint, an attacker was able to determine whether a document with a given ID matched a specified SHA1 hash, regardless of any permission restrictions on the document or knowing its filename. This could allow an attacker to determine whether a document with a specific known hash is present in the Wagtail document library. This vulnerability does not expose the document's contents or any metadata beyond the already known SHA1 hash, and does not expose information about any documents for which the attacker does not know the SHA1 hash. ### Patches Patched versions have been released as Wagtail 7.0.9, 7.3.4, 7.4.3 and 8.0rc2. ### Workarounds Site owners who are unable to upgrade can strip `If-Match` and `If-None-Match` from anonymous requests to `/documents/` at the reverse proxy, or use a custom document model without a `file_hash` attribute. ### Acknowledgements Many thanks to Anand Himanshu for reporting this issue. ### For more information If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Visit Wagtail's [support channels](https://docs.wagtail.org/en/stable/support.html) * Email us at [security@wagtail.org](mailto:security@wagtail.org) (view our [security policy](https://github.com/wagtail/wagtail/security/policy) for more information).

CWE-280Improper Handling of Insufficient Permissions or Privileges (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when it has insufficient privileges to access resources or functionality as specified by their permissions. This may cause it to follow unexpected code paths that may leave the product in an invalid state.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Implementation
Always check to see if you have successfully accessed a resource or system functionality, and use proper error handling if it is unsuccessful. Do this even when you are operating in a highly privileged mode, because errors or environmental conditions might still cause a failure.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (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

WeaknessesCWE-280

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats