DjangoFramework / library · Djangoproject
CVE-2017-7233
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 1.10 before 1.10.7, 1.9 before 1.9.13, and 1.8 before 1.8.18 relies on user input in some cases to redirect the user to an "on success" URL. The security check for these redirects (namely ``django.utils.http.is_safe_url()``) considered some numeric URLs "safe" when they shouldn't be, aka an open redirect vulnerability. Also, if a developer relies on ``is_safe_url()`` to provide safe redirect targets and puts such a URL into a link, they could suffer from an XSS attack.
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's is_safe_url() function used for validating redirect URLs incorrectly considered certain numeric URLs as safe when they should be blocked. This creates an open redirect vulnerability where attackers can manipulate redirects to trusted domains. Additionally, if developers use these URLs in links, it introduces an XSS attack vector.
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
= 1.8.0= 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 installed Django versionRun 'django-admin --version' or check your requirements.txt/environment for the Django package versionAffected if The installed version is 1.8.0 through 1.8.11 (any version listed in the affected range)
-
Locate usage of is_safe_url() in codebaseSearch source code for 'is_safe_url' function calls, typically in views.py, forms.py, or utility modules handling redirectsAffected if The function is present and used in your codebase
-
Inspect redirect logic using user inputReview code paths where user-supplied URLs (request parameters, form data, query strings) are passed to redirect functions or is_safe_url()Affected if User-provided URLs are being validated with is_safe_url() and then used in redirects
-
Test for numeric URL bypassPass numeric strings like '0', '00', '1e', '0x0' as redirect URLs to endpoints using is_safe_url() and observe if they are considered safe or cause unexpected redirectsAffected if Numeric URLs are accepted as safe and redirect to unexpected locations
You are affected if your Django version is between 1.8.0 and 1.8.11 inclusive and your code uses is_safe_url() to validate redirect URLs derived from user input.
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 dataUpdate Django to version 1.10.7, 1.9.13, or 1.8.18 or later. Review all code using is_safe_url() for redirect logic and ensure user-supplied URLs are properly validated before use.
Fix this in Django
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-7233 — 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-2017-7233 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