Potential exposure of private data via case-sensitive Cache-Control directives in UpdateCacheMiddleware
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 9/100)
- 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: 0.42% (FIRST EPSS).
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: djangoproject Django 5.2.15, 6.0.6.
- Mentioned 1 time in Turkish national cyber security advisories (siberguvenlik.gov.tr).
Low priority for now. Upgrade to djangoproject Django 5.2.15, 6.0.6 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 Django 5.2 before 5.2.15 and 6.0 before 6.0.6. `django.middleware.cache.UpdateCacheMiddleware` in Django does not match `Cache-Control` response directives case-insensitively, which allows remote attackers to read responses that were incorrectly cached because their `Cache-Control` directives used uppercase or mixed-case values. 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 Ahmed Badawe for reporting this issue.
- Published
- Jun 3, 2026
- Updated
- Jul 21, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.4% · 35th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-178
Report tools
Action score
9
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 9 / 40 · 2.3 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.4%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · DSF
- 3.1
- NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/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 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 django5.2 and later · before 5.2.15
- djangoproject django6.0 and later · before 6.0.6
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
- 6.0.6, 5.2.15not affected
- 6.0 and later · before 6.0.6affected · python
- 5.2 and later · before 5.2.15affected · python
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 3:5.2.15-1 | 3:5.2.15-1 |
| openSUSE:Leap 16.0 | python-Django | before 5.2.4-bp160.9.1 | 5.2.4-bp160.9.1 |
| openSUSE:Tumbleweed | python-Django | before 5.2.15-1.1 | 5.2.15-1.1 |
| openSUSE:Tumbleweed | python-Django4 | before 4.2.30-3.1 | 4.2.30-3.1 |
| openSUSE:Tumbleweed | python-Django6 | before 6.0.6-1.1 | 6.0.6-1.1 |
| PyPI | django | from 5.2 · before 5.2.15 | 5.2.15 |
| PyPI | django | from 6.0 · before 6.0.6 | 6.0.6 |
| PyPI | django | from 6.0.0 · before 6.0.6 | 6.0.6 |
| PyPI | django | before 5.2.15 | 5.2.15 |
| SUSE:Linux Enterprise Module for Package Hub 15 SP7 | python-Django | before 4.2.11-150600.3.59.1 | 4.2.11-150600.3.59.1 |
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-2026-6873Jun 3, 2026 · Signed cookie salt namespace collision in django.http.HttpRequest.get_signed_cookie9Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-7666Jun 3, 2026 · Potential unencrypted email transmission via STARTTLS in the SMTP backend9Monitor
- Later →CVE-2026-48588Jul 7, 2026 · Potential exposure of private data via cached Set-Cookie response9Monitor
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 | 5.2.15 | Vendor (CNA) |
| djangoproject Django | 6.0.6 | Vendor (CNA) |
| debian:python-django | 3:5.2.15-1 · Debian:14 | Package registry (OSV) |
| opensuse:python-Django | 5.2.15-1.1 · openSUSE:Tumbleweed | Package registry (OSV) |
| opensuse:python-Django4 | 4.2.30-3.1 · openSUSE:Tumbleweed | Package registry (OSV) |
| opensuse:python-Django6 | 6.0.6-1.1 · openSUSE:Tumbleweed | Package registry (OSV) |
| PyPI:django | 5.2.15 | Package registry (OSV) |
| PyPI:django | 6.0.6 | Package registry (OSV) |
| suse:python-Django | 4.2.11-150600.3.59.1 · SUSE:Linux Enterprise Module for Package Hub 15 SP7 | 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.
- Ahmed Badawereporter
- Jake Howardremediation developer
- Natalia Bidartcoordinator
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).
National notice (Türkiye Cybersecurity Directorate / USOM)
Official security notices citing this record; remediation advice is on the agency's page.
- TR-26-0307 · Jun 4, 2026(Django Güvenlik Zafiyeti)
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- Integrity
- Availability
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- P
- Scope
- X
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-178 · Improper Handling of Case SensitivityCVSS vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
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.
MITRE has no CAPEC/ATT&CK mapping for this CWE.
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.