DjangoFramework / library · Django Project
CVE-2007-5828
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the admin panel in Django 0.96 allows remote attackers to change passwords of arbitrary users via a request to admin/auth/user/1/password/. NOTE: this issue has been disputed by Debian, since product documentation includes a recommendation for a CSRF protection module that is included with the product. However, CVE considers this an issue because the default configuration does not use this module
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceCSRF vulnerability in Django 0.96 admin panel allows remote attackers to change passwords of arbitrary users by tricking authenticated administrators into visiting malicious URLs. The vulnerability exists because Django's CSRF protection middleware is not enabled by default, allowing attackers to forge password change requests to the admin interface.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
DjangoFramework / library
= 0.96CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify Django version is 0.96Check the installed Django version by running 'django-admin --version' or inspecting the django/__init__.py file, or by checking your requirements.txt/pip freeze outputAffected if The installed Django version is exactly 0.96 (other versions are not affected by this specific CVE)
-
Confirm admin panel is in useCheck if the Django admin interface (django.contrib.admin) is installed in INSTALLED_APPS in settings.py and accessibleAffected if Django admin is enabled and accessible - the CSRF vulnerability only applies to admin password change forms
-
Check if CSRF middleware is enabledInspect the MIDDLEWARE setting in settings.py and look for 'django.middleware.csrf.CsrfViewMiddleware' - if it is missing, CSRF protection is not enabledAffected if CsrfViewMiddleware is NOT listed in MIDDLEWARE (or MIDDLEWARE_CLASSES in older Django 0.96), meaning the site lacks CSRF protection for admin forms
You are affected only if you are running exactly Django 0.96 AND have the admin panel enabled AND the CSRF middleware is not configured in your settings.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataEnable Django's built-in CSRF middleware in settings.py and ensure all admin forms use CSRF tokens. For production systems, upgrading to a supported Django version with CSRF protection enabled by default is strongly recommended.
Fix this in Django
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-5828 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2007-5828 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data