DjangoFramework / library · Djangoproject
CVE-2014-0473
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 · uneditedThe caching framework in Django before 1.4.11, 1.5.x before 1.5.6, 1.6.x before 1.6.3, and 1.7.x before 1.7 beta 2 reuses a cached CSRF token for all anonymous users, which allows remote attackers to bypass CSRF protections by reading the CSRF cookie for anonymous users.
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 confidenceThe Django caching framework caches CSRF tokens for anonymous users and serves the same cached token to all anonymous users, allowing remote attackers to read the CSRF cookie value and bypass CSRF protection mechanisms.
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
= 1.5= 1.5.1= 1.5.2= 1.5.3= 1.5.4= 1.5.5= 1.6= 1.6.1= 1.6.2= 1.7<= 1.4.10= 1.4
Ubuntu LinuxOperating system
= 10.04= 12.04= 12.10= 13.10= 14.04CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Identify Django versionRun 'django-admin --version' or check the Django package version via pip show djangoAffected if The installed Django version is 1.4, 1.4.10 or earlier, 1.5.x, 1.6.x, or 1.7.x (any version up to and including 1.7)
-
Confirm caching framework is enabledInspect Django settings for the CACHES configuration settingAffected if CACHES is configured with any backend (such as memcached, database, local memory, or file-based caching)
-
Verify site serves anonymous usersConfirm the application serves unauthenticated users - check if there are views accessible without authentication or if AnonymousUser is allowedAffected if The site serves any unauthenticated or anonymous users
-
Confirm CSRF middleware is in useInspect Django settings for MIDDLEWARE_CLASSES containing 'django.middleware.csrf.CsrfViewMiddleware'Affected if CSRF middleware is enabled (this is default in Django)
-
Determine if site uses session frameworkInspect Django settings for SESSION_ENGINE configuration (required for anonymous user sessions)Affected if Sessions are enabled and anonymous users can establish a session
You are affected if your Django version is 1.4 through 1.7.x inclusive AND the caching framework is enabled AND your site serves anonymous users, because the CSRF token for anonymous users will be cached and shared across all anonymous sessions.
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 dataUpgrade Django to version 1.4.11, 1.5.6, 1.6.3, or 1.7 beta 2 or later. Alternatively, configure the caching framework to exclude CSRF tokens from being cached.
Fix this in Django
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,864.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-0473 — 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-2014-0473 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