ASGI header spoofing via underscore/hyphen conflation
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 30/100)
- 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: 0.54% (FIRST EPSS).
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- According to CISA the attack is automatable: targets can be found by mass scanning.
- Fixed version: djangoproject Django 4.2.30, 5.2.13, 6.0.4.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to djangoproject Django 4.2.30, 5.2.13, 6.0.4 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
An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.4, 5.2 before 5.2.13, and 4.2 before 4.2.30. `ASGIRequest` allows a remote attacker to spoof headers by exploiting an ambiguous mapping of two header variants (with hyphens or with underscores) to a single version with underscores. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected. Django would like to thank Tarek Nakkouch for reporting this issue.
- Published
- Apr 7, 2026
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.5% · 45th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-290
Report tools
Action score
30
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 30 / 40 · 7.5 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.5%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- yes
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| djangoproject | django | cpe:2.3:a:djangoproject:django |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- djangoproject django4.2 and later · before 4.2.30
- djangoproject django5.2 and later · before 5.2.13
- djangoproject django6.0 and later · before 6.0.4
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (DSF). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
djangoproject Django
- 6.0.4, 5.2.13, 4.2.30not affected
- 6.0 and later · before 6.0.4affected · semver
- 5.2 and later · before 5.2.13affected · semver
- 4.2 and later · before 4.2.30affected · semver
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian:12 | python-django | from 0 | — |
| Debian:14 | python-django | before 3:4.2.30-1 | 3:4.2.30-1 |
| openSUSE:Leap 16.0 | python-Django | before 5.2.4-bp160.7.1 | 5.2.4-bp160.7.1 |
| openSUSE:Tumbleweed | python-Django | before 5.2.13-1.1 | 5.2.13-1.1 |
| openSUSE:Tumbleweed | python-Django4 | before 4.2.30-1.1 | 4.2.30-1.1 |
| openSUSE:Tumbleweed | python-Django6 | before 6.0.4-1.1 | 6.0.4-1.1 |
| PyPI | django | from 4.2 · before 4.2.30 | 4.2.30 |
| PyPI | django | from 5.2 · before 5.2.13 | 5.2.13 |
| PyPI | django | from 6.0 · before 6.0.4 | 6.0.4 |
Same product
djangoproject: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2022-34265An issue was discovered in Django 3.2 before 3.2.14 and 4.0 before 4.0.6.61This week
- CVE-2020-7471Django 1.11 before 1.11.28, 2.2 before 2.2.10, and 3.0 before 3.0.3 allows SQL Injection if untrusted data is used as a StringAgg delimiter 59Plan
- CVE-2019-19844Django before 1.11.27, 2.x before 2.2.9, and 3.x before 3.0.1 allows account takeover.55Plan
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-33033Apr 7, 2026 · Potential denial-of-service vulnerability in MultiPartParser via base64-encoded file upload26Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-33034Apr 7, 2026 · Potential denial-of-service vulnerability in ASGI requests via memory upload limit bypass30Monitor
- Later →CVE-2026-4277Apr 7, 2026 · Privilege abuse in GenericInlineModelAdmin39Monitor
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 |
|---|---|---|
| djangoproject Django | 4.2.30 | Vendor (CNA) |
| djangoproject Django | 5.2.13 | Vendor (CNA) |
| djangoproject Django | 6.0.4 | Vendor (CNA) |
| debian:python-django | 3:4.2.30-1 · Debian:14 | Package registry (OSV) |
| opensuse:python-Django | 5.2.13-1.1 · openSUSE:Tumbleweed | Package registry (OSV) |
| opensuse:python-Django4 | 4.2.30-1.1 · openSUSE:Tumbleweed | Package registry (OSV) |
| opensuse:python-Django6 | 6.0.4-1.1 · openSUSE:Tumbleweed | Package registry (OSV) |
| PyPI:django | 4.2.30 | Package registry (OSV) |
| PyPI:django | 5.2.13 | Package registry (OSV) |
| PyPI:django | 6.0.4 | 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.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
- Tarek Nakkouchreporter
- Jacob Wallsremediation developer
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
—
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
- CVE-2026-15307119 days apartServer-side file-write and request forgery via spatial lookups34Monitor
- CVE-2026-120763 days apartPotential SQL injection via raster lookups on PostGIS25Monitor
- CVE-2026-128763 days apartPotential SQL injection in column aliases via control characters21Monitor
- CVE-2026-131263 days apartPotential SQL injection via QuerySet.order_by and FilteredRelation21Monitor
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.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- none
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- None
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-290 · Authentication Bypass by SpoofingCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
nvd-secondary
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)
- Exploitation of Trusted IdentifiersCAPEC-21likelihood: High · High
- Exploiting Trust in ClientCAPEC-22likelihood: High · High
- Creating a Rogue Certification Authority CertificateCAPEC-459likelihood: Medium · Very High
- Web Services API Signature Forgery Leveraging Hash Function Extension WeaknessCAPEC-461High
- Signature SpoofCAPEC-473
- Signature Spoofing by MisrepresentationCAPEC-476likelihood: Low · High
- Session Credential Falsification through PredictionCAPEC-59likelihood: High · High
- Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay)CAPEC-60likelihood: High · High
ATT&CK techniques
- Masquerading: Invalid Code SignatureT1036.001
- Access Token ManipulationT1134
- Access Token Manipulation:Token Impersonation/TheftT1134.001
- Steal Application Access TokenT1528
- Steal Web Session CookieT1539
- Use Alternate Authentication Material:Web Session CookieT1550.004
- Subvert Trust Controls: Code SigningT1553.002
- Adversary-in-the-MiddleT1557
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.