CVE-2010-4535
What it is
The password reset functionality in django.contrib.auth in Django before 1.1.3, 1.2.x before 1.2.4, and 1.3.x before 1.3 beta 1 does not validate the length of a string representing a base36 timestamp, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (resource consumption) via a URL that specifies a large base36 integer.
At a glance
- Exploitability
- Can be exploited over the network without logging in. Limited direct impact.
- Exploit odds
- 3.4% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).
- Fix
- A patch, advisory or fixed version is referenced. Upgrade or apply it.
Timeline
- PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
- Last updatedMost recent change to the record
Why it ranks here
- Exploited in the wild: no, CISA does not list it.
- Exploit odds: 3.4% in the next 30 days (EPSS).
- Severity: 5.0 MEDIUM (CVSS).
- Fix: a patch or advisory is linked.
Details
- Published
- Last modified
- Exploit probability
- 3.4% · EPSS, next 30 days
- Weakness
- CWE-20 · Improper input validation
- Record status
- Modified
Affected
- Djangoproject Django ≤ 1.1.2
- Djangoproject Django 0.91
- Djangoproject Django 0.95
- Djangoproject Django 0.95.1
- Djangoproject Django 0.96
- Djangoproject Django 1.0
- Djangoproject Django 1.0.1
- Djangoproject Django 1.0.2
Attack profile CVSS 2.0 · 5.0
- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
Raw vector
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
Is it in your code?
Hand this to your coding agent. It searches your project for the affected products and checks versions. Nothing leaves your machine.
Read https://cve-list.com/agent/cve/CVE-2010-4535.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2010-4535. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.
Fix and advisories
- http://code.djangoproject.com/changeset/15032
- http://secunia.com/advisories/42715
- http://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2010/dec/22/security/
- http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/12/23/4
- http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2011/01/03/5
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665373
- http://code.djangoproject.com/changeset/15032
- http://secunia.com/advisories/42715
- http://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2010/dec/22/security/
- http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/12/23/4
References
- http://code.djangoproject.com/changeset/15032
- http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2011-January/053041.html
- http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2011-January/053072.html
- http://secunia.com/advisories/42715
- http://secunia.com/advisories/42827
- http://secunia.com/advisories/42913
- http://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2010/dec/22/security/
- http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/12/23/4
- http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2011/01/03/5
- http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/45563
- http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/USN-1040-1
- http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2011/0048
- http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2011/0098
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665373
- http://code.djangoproject.com/changeset/15032
- http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2011-January/053041.html
- http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2011-January/053072.html
- http://secunia.com/advisories/42715
- http://secunia.com/advisories/42827
- http://secunia.com/advisories/42913
- http://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2010/dec/22/security/
- http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/12/23/4
- http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2011/01/03/5
- http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/45563
- http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/USN-1040-1