CVE-2023-28117: Sentry SDK leaks sensitive session information when `sendDefaultPII` is set to `True`
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 26/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.64% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 51.2% of all records.
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: sentry-sdk (PyPI) 1.14.0.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to sentry-sdk (PyPI) 1.14.0 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
Sentry SDK is the official Python SDK for Sentry, real-time crash reporting software. When using the Django integration of versions prior to 1.14.0 of the Sentry SDK in a specific configuration it is possible to leak sensitive cookies values, including the session cookie to Sentry. These sensitive cookies could then be used by someone with access to your Sentry issues to impersonate or escalate their privileges within your application. In order for these sensitive values to be leaked, the Sentry SDK configuration must have `sendDefaultPII` set to `True`; one must use a custom name for either `SESSION_COOKIE_NAME` or `CSRF_COOKIE_NAME` in one's Django settings; and one must not be configured in one's organization or project settings to use Sentry's data scrubbing features to account for the custom cookie names. As of version 1.14.0, the Django integration of the `sentry-sdk` will detect the custom cookie names based on one's Django settings and will remove the values from the payload before sending the data to Sentry. As a workaround, use the SDK's filtering mechanism to remove the cookies from the payload that is sent to Sentry. For error events, this can be done with the `before_send` callback method and for performance related events (transactions) one can use the `before_send_transaction` callback method. Those who want to handle filtering of these values on the server-side can also use Sentry's advanced data scrubbing feature to account for the custom cookie names. Look for the `$http.cookies`, `$http.headers`, `$request.cookies`, or `$request.headers` fields to target with a scrubbing rule.
- Published
- Mar 22, 2023
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.6% · 51th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-201
Report tools
Action score
26
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 26 / 40 · 6.5 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.6%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 6.5
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 7.6
- 1.1 point gap
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| sentry | sentry software development kit | cpe:2.3:a:sentry:sentry_software_development_kit |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- sentry sentry software development kitbefore 1.14.0
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
getsentry sentry-python
- < 1.14.0affected
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | sentry-sdk | before 1.14.0 | 1.14.0 |
Same product
sentry: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2023-46729Sentry Next.js vulnerable to SSRF via Next.js SDK tunnel endpoint24Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| PyPI:sentry-sdk | 1.14.0 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-201 · Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent DataCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Choosing Message IdentifierCAPEC-12likelihood: High · High
- Exploiting Incorrectly Configured SSL/TLSCAPEC-217likelihood: Low
- WiFi MAC Address TrackingCAPEC-612Low
- WiFi SSID TrackingCAPEC-613Low
- Cellular Broadcast Message RequestCAPEC-618Low
- Signal Strength TrackingCAPEC-619Low
- Analysis of Packet Timing and SizesCAPEC-621Low
- Electromagnetic Side-Channel AttackCAPEC-622Low
ATT&CK techniques
—
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (2 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.