<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/rss/recent/all/10</id>
  <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
  <updated>2026-10-02T14:12:55.914302+00:00</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Vulnerability-Lookup</name>
    <email>csirt@opendfir.org</email>
  </author>
  <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org" rel="alternate"/>
  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="1.0.0">python-feedgen</generator>
  <subtitle>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</subtitle>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bit-django-2026-15920</id>
    <title>BIT-django-2026-15920 — Potential cross-site scripting via URLField values in the admin</title>
    <updated>2026-10-02T14:12:55.922700+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> Bitnami: django</p>
<p>An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.17 and 6.0 before 6.0.8.
`django.contrib.admin.utils.display_for_field()` renders `URLField` values as clickable links in the admin without validating the URL. A value stored with an unsafe scheme is displayed as a link on changelist and read-only admin pages, which allows cross-site scripting against staff users who click the link.
Exploitation requires the unsafe value to already be stored in the database. `URLField` validation through a `ModelForm` or the admin rejects unsafe schemes, so this affects applications that persist `URLField` data without running model validation, for example through direct queryset writes, deserialization, or bulk import of untrusted input.
Django would like to thank Egor Saltykov for reporting this issue.</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bit-django-2026-15920"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-344161</id>
    <title>EUVD-2026-344161</title>
    <updated>2026-10-02T14:12:55.922753+00:00</updated>
    <content>EUVD-2026-344161</content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-344161"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-15920</id>
    <title>fkie_cve-2026-15920</title>
    <updated>2026-10-02T14:12:55.922769+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.17 and 6.0 before 6.0.8.
`django.contrib.admin.utils.display_for_field()` renders `URLField` values as clickable links in the admin without validating the URL. A value stored with an unsafe scheme is displayed as a link on changelist and read-only admin pages, which allows cross-site scripting against staff users who click the link.
Exploitation requires the unsafe value to already be stored in the database. `URLField` validation through a `ModelForm` or the admin rejects unsafe schemes, so this affects applications that persist `URLField` data without running model validation, for example through direct queryset writes, deserialization, or bulk import of untrusted input.
Django would like to thank Egor Saltykov for reporting this issue.</p>
      </div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-15920"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-8rmj-xgq5-w9qm</id>
    <title>GHSA-8rmj-xgq5-w9qm</title>
    <updated>2026-10-02T14:12:55.922794+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.17 and 6.0 before 6.0.8.
`django.contrib.admin.utils.display_for_field()` renders `URLField` values as clickable links in the admin without validating the URL. A value stored with an unsafe scheme is displayed as a link on changelist and read-only admin pages, which allows cross-site scripting against staff users who click the link.
Exploitation requires the unsafe value to already be stored in the database. `URLField` validation through a `ModelForm` or the admin rejects unsafe schemes, so this affects applications that persist `URLField` data without running model validation, for example through direct queryset writes, deserialization, or bulk import of untrusted input.
Django would like to thank Egor Saltykov for reporting this issue.</p>
      </div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-8rmj-xgq5-w9qm"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/oesa-2026-3496</id>
    <title>OESA-2026-3496 — python-django security update</title>
    <updated>2026-10-02T14:12:55.922812+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> openEuler:22.03-LTS-SP4: python-django</p>
<p>A high-level Python Web framework that encourages rapid development and clean, pragmatic design.

Security Fix(es):</p>
<p>An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.17 and 6.0 before 6.0.8. GeoDjango spatial lookups optimistically parse the right-hand-side value as a raster by passing it to the `django.contrib.gis.gdal.GDALRaster` constructor. Any value used in a spatial lookup against a `GeometryField` or `RasterField` reaches this constructor, including untrusted input, for example a spatial-field filter submitted through the Django admin changelist query string by a staff user with view permission. A `dict`, or a `str` holding its JSON representation, is opened in write mode regardless of the constructor&amp;apos;s `write=False` default, allowing a file with an attacker-chosen name and contents to be written through a file-backed GDAL driver. Any other `str` is treated as a datasource, allowing an outbound network request through a GDAL virtual filesystem handler. Writing a file to a location later imported by the application can result in remote code execution.(CVE-2026-15307)</p>
<p>An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.17 and 6.0 before 6.0.8. `django.utils.translation.check_for_language()` is subject to a potential denial-of-service attack when given many distinct, very long language codes, which are retained as keys in an in-memory cache and consume process memory. Such codes reach the function through the `django.views.i18n.set_language()` view, which is not rou…</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/oesa-2026-3496"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/opensuse-su-2026:11464-1</id>
    <title>openSUSE-SU-2026:11464-1 — python313-Django-6.0.8-1.1 on GA media</title>
    <updated>2026-10-02T14:12:55.922853+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>python313-Django-6.0.8-1.1 on GA media</p>
      </div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/opensuse-su-2026:11464-1"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/suse-su-2026:3503-1</id>
    <title>SUSE-SU-2026:3503-1 — Security update for python-Django</title>
    <updated>2026-10-02T14:12:55.922871+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>Security update for python-Django</p>
      </div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/suse-su-2026:3503-1"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2026-15920</id>
    <title>UBUNTU-CVE-2026-15920</title>
    <updated>2026-10-02T14:12:55.922885+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: python-django, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: python-django, Ubuntu:Pro:18.04:LTS: python-django, Ubuntu:Pro:20.04:LTS: python-django, Ubuntu:22.04:LTS: python-django, Ubuntu:24.04:LTS: python-django, Ubuntu:26.04:LTS: python-django</p>
<p>An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.17 and 6.0 before 6.0.8. `django.contrib.admin.utils.display_for_field()` renders `URLField` values as clickable links in the admin without validating the URL. A value stored with an unsafe scheme is displayed as a link on changelist and read-only admin pages, which allows cross-site scripting against staff users who click the link. Exploitation requires the unsafe value to already be stored in the database. `URLField` validation through a `ModelForm` or the admin rejects unsafe schemes, so this affects applications that persist `URLField` data without running model validation, for example through direct queryset writes, deserialization, or bulk import of untrusted input. Django would like to thank Egor Saltykov for reporting this issue.</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2026-15920"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2026-2649</id>
    <title>WID-SEC-W-2026-2649 — Django: Mehrere Schwachstellen</title>
    <updated>2026-10-02T14:12:55.922915+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Django ausnutzen, um beliebigen Programmcode auszuführen, Daten zu manipulieren, Cross-Site-Scripting-Angriffe durchzuführen oder einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand auszulösen.</p>
      </div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2026-2649"/>
  </entry>
</feed>
