Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- The selected CVSS metric records a network-reachable, unauthenticated path with no user interaction.
- EPSS is 0.29% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-87890High confidence
Potential request forgery via spatial lookup byte values
djangoproject · Django
6.9MediumCVSS 4.0
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix
Fix availability varies by productMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 59 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs djangoproject Django and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Remediation availability differs by product scope
Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 59 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
- SUSE Product Security Team: 2 affected or under-investigation product states without a fixed product state in the same current advisory
- Red Hat Product Security: 54 affected or under-investigation product states without a fixed product state in the same current advisory
- Debian Security Tracker: 3 affected package states with no published fix
Distribution package intelligence
4 package statesRelease-specific package status
Debian findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
Package result overrides the generic status
BlackTree has verified remediation for at least one product or source, but the relevant distribution still reports no fixed package for 3 affected package states shown here. Treat those rows as affected with no fix until that distribution publishes a fixed version.
Repository candidate not checked
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian trixietrixie · source | python-django | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 8 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | python-django | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 8 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | python-django | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 8 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | python-django | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 3:5.2.18-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 8 Oct 2026 |
Direct vendor intelligence
2 currentAuthoritative vendor CSAF and VEX advisories
Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.
CVE-2026-87890 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 2 · interimSUSE Product Security TeamCVE-2026-87890
The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.
- python-Django as component of SUSE Linux Enterprise Module for Package Hub 15 SP7
- python311-Django as component of SUSE Linux Enterprise Module for Package Hub 15 SP7
- Summary
- An issue was discovered in Django 6.1 before 6.1.2, 6.0 before 6.0.9, and 5.2 before 5.2.18. An incomplete fix for CVE-2026-15307 in Django spatial lookups allows an attacker who can supply `bytes` values to cause the Django process to make network requests via a crafted VRT document referencing an external raster source. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.1.x, 5.0.x, and 4.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected. Django would like to thank sicksec for reporting this issue.
- Remediation
- No remediation text is recorded.
CVE-2026-87890 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securitydjango: Server-side request forgery via unvalidated bytes in spatial lookups
The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.
- ansible-automation-platform-24/controller-rhel8 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
- ansible-automation-platform-24/eda-controller-rhel8 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
- ansible-automation-platform-24/hub-rhel8 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
- ansible-automation-platform-24/lightspeed-rhel8 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
- ansible-automation-platform-25/ansible-dev-tools-rhel8 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
- ansible-automation-platform-25/controller-rhel8 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
- ansible-automation-platform-25/eda-controller-rhel8 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
- ansible-automation-platform-25/gateway-rhel8 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
- ansible-automation-platform-25/hub-rhel8 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
- ansible-automation-platform-25/lightspeed-rhel8 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
- ansible-automation-platform-26/ansible-dev-tools-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
- ansible-automation-platform-26/controller-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
- Summary
- A flaw was found in Django. When handling spatial lookups in its Geographic Information System (GIS) framework, raster data supplied as raw bytes is processed without proper encapsulation. If an application passes untrusted input into these lookups, an attacker can supply crafted data referencing external resources to induce the server into making unintended outbound network requests (Server-Side Request Forgery, or SSRF). This issue can allow an attacker to interact with internal services or access restricted resources reachable from the application host.
- Remediation
- Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 59 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Fix availability varies by product01
What, why and how
An issue was discovered in Django 6.1 before 6.1.2, 6.0 before 6.0.9, and 5.2 before 5.2.18. An incomplete fix for CVE-2026-15307 in Django spatial lookups allows an attacker who can supply `bytes` values to cause the Django process to make network requests via a crafted VRT document referencing an external raster source. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.1.x, 5.0.x, and 4.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected. Django would like to thank sicksec for reporting this issue.
What
An issue was discovered in Django 6.1 before 6.1.2, 6.0 before 6.0.9, and 5.2 before 5.2.18. An incomplete fix for CVE-2026-15307 in Django spatial lookups allows an attacker who can supply `bytes` values to cause the Django process to make network requests via a crafted VRT document referencing an external raster source. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.1.x, 5.0.x, and 4.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected. Django would like to thank sicksec for reporting this issue.
Why
The server follows an attacker-influenced destination, allowing requests to systems or services the attacker cannot reach directly.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
An issue was discovered in Django 6.1 before 6.1.2, 6.0 before 6.0.9, and 5.2 before 5.2.18. An incomplete fix for CVE-2026-15307 in Django spatial lookups allows an attacker who can supply `bytes` values to cause the Django process to make network requests via a crafted VRT document referencing an external raster source. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.1.x, 5.0.x, and 4.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected. Django would like to thank sicksec for reporting this issue.
Why
The server follows an attacker-influenced destination, allowing requests to systems or services the attacker cannot reach directly.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-918 ↗
CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/SA:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.ATNoneAttack requirements: No additional deployment or execution condition is required.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.VCLowVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.VINoneVulnerable-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.VANoneVulnerable-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SCNoneSubsequent-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SILowSubsequent-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.SANoneSubsequent-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix availability varies by product
- Affected
- Action
- Use the product-specific evidence above. Patch only products with a verified fixed release, and keep every affected or under-investigation state without a matching fix in the remediation queue.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 6 Oct 2026 · Last source change 6 Oct 2026, 14:06 UTC · CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-10-07
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-93388
Product sourceVendor CSAF · SUSE Product Security Team
Remediation sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-93388 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-93388"}
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.