DjangoFramework / library · Djangoproject
CVE-2014-0482
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 contrib.auth.middleware.RemoteUserMiddleware middleware in Django before 1.4.14, 1.5.x before 1.5.9, 1.6.x before 1.6.6, and 1.7 before release candidate 3, when using the contrib.auth.backends.RemoteUserBackend backend, allows remote authenticated users to hijack web sessions via vectors related to the REMOTE_USER header.
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 RemoteUserMiddleware in Django trusts the REMOTE_USER header from incoming requests without sufficient validation when used with RemoteUserBackend, allowing authenticated remote users to hijack sessions by manipulating this header.
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
= 1.6= 1.6.1= 1.6.2= 1.6.3= 1.6.4= 1.6.5<= 1.4.13= 1.4= 1.4.1= 1.4.2= 1.4.4= 1.4.5= 12.3= 13.1CVSS 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
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:S/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.
-
Check installed Django versionRun 'python -c "import django; print(django.get_version())"' or 'pip show django' to see the installed versionAffected if The version is 1.4.x before 1.4.14, 1.5.x before 1.5.9, or 1.6.x before 1.6.6 (including 1.6 through 1.6.5)
-
Verify RemoteUserMiddleware is enabledCheck the MIDDLEWARE_CLASSES (Django 1.6 and earlier) or MIDDLEWARE (Django 1.7+) setting in settings.py for 'django.contrib.auth.middleware.RemoteUserMiddleware'Affected if RemoteUserMiddleware is listed in the middleware configuration
-
Confirm RemoteUserBackend is in useCheck the AUTHENTICATION_BACKENDS setting in settings.py for 'django.contrib.auth.backends.RemoteUserBackend'Affected if RemoteUserBackend is included in the authentication backends configuration
-
Check for REMOTE_USER header trust configurationInspect the Django application deployment behind any reverse proxy or load balancer configuration to see if the REMOTE_USER header could be injected by an external userAffected if The application accepts REMOTE_USER headers from untrusted sources without proxy validation
You are affected if you run a vulnerable Django version (1.4 before 1.4.14, 1.5 before 1.5.9, or 1.6 before 1.6.6) AND have RemoteUserMiddleware enabled with RemoteUserBackend while allowing external control of the REMOTE_USER header.
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 1.4.14, 1.5.9, 1.6.6, or 1.7 RC3 or later. If upgrading is not feasible, review and restrict trust in the REMOTE_USER header through middleware or backend customization.
Fix this in Django
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-0482 — 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-2014-0482 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