CVE-2016-9014
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 · uneditedDjango before 1.8.x before 1.8.16, 1.9.x before 1.9.11, and 1.10.x before 1.10.3, when settings.DEBUG is True, allow remote attackers to conduct DNS rebinding attacks by leveraging failure to validate the HTTP Host header against settings.ALLOWED_HOSTS.
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 confidenceDjango versions before 1.8.16, 1.9.11, and 1.10.3 fail to validate the HTTP Host header against settings.ALLOWED_HOSTS when DEBUG=True. This allows DNS rebinding attacks where an attacker uses a malicious DNS response to bypass security controls and inject arbitrary Host headers, potentially enabling cache poisoning or session hijacking.
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= 24= 25= 12.04= 14.04= 16.04= 16.10= 1.8= 1.8.1= 1.8.2= 1.8.3= 1.8.4= 1.8.5= 1.8.6= 1.8.7= 1.8.8= 1.8.9= 1.8.10= 1.8.11CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 installed Django versionRun 'django-admin --version' or check your requirements.txt/dependencies file for the django package versionAffected if The installed version is 1.8.x before 1.8.16, 1.9.x before 1.9.11, or 1.10.x before 1.10.3
-
Locate Django settings fileFind your project's settings.py file, typically in the project root under a subdirectory named after your projectAffected if Unable to locate settings file for inspection
-
Check DEBUG setting valueOpen settings.py and search for the DEBUG variable definition. Verify if it is set to TrueAffected if DEBUG is set to True in your production or accessible environment
-
Verify ALLOWED_HOSTS configurationIn settings.py, locate the ALLOWED_HOSTS setting and examine its valueAffected if ALLOWED_HOSTS is empty, contains only empty strings, or contains a wildcard '*'
You are affected if your Django version falls within the vulnerable ranges (1.8.x before 1.8.16, 1.9.x before 1.9.11, 1.10.x before 1.10.3) AND DEBUG=True AND ALLOWED_HOSTS is empty or misconfigured.
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 dataSet DEBUG=False in production environments and ensure settings.ALLOWED_HOSTS contains only legitimate domain names. Additionally, upgrade Django to a patched version.
- Consultation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-9014 — 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-2016-9014 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