DjangoFramework / library · Djangoproject
CVE-2017-7234
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 · uneditedA maliciously crafted URL to a Django (1.10 before 1.10.7, 1.9 before 1.9.13, and 1.8 before 1.8.18) site using the ``django.views.static.serve()`` view could redirect to any other domain, aka an open redirect vulnerability.
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.views.static.serve() view in Django 1.8.x before 1.8.18, 1.9.x before 1.9.13, and 1.10.x before 1.10.7 contains an open redirect vulnerability. A maliciously crafted URL with a crafted redirect parameter can cause the view to redirect users to arbitrary external domains, enabling phishing attacks.
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.
-
Check installed Django versionRun 'python -c "import django; print(django.get_version())"' or check your requirements.txt/Pipfile.lock for the django package versionAffected if The version is 1.8.x before 1.8.18, 1.9.x before 1.9.13, or 1.10.x before 1.10.7
-
Verify django.views.static.serve is in useSearch your codebase (urls.py files and any custom views) for 'static.serve' or 'from django.views.static import serve'Affected if Your application explicitly imports or uses django.views.static.serve() in URL patterns
-
Confirm static files are served via Django in your environmentReview your web server configuration and URL routing. Check if production traffic reaches Django's static.serve() rather than a dedicated web server (nginx, Apache) for static filesAffected if Your production environment routes static file requests through Django's serve() view instead of a proper static file server
-
Test for open redirect behaviorIf static.serve is in use, send a request with a redirect parameter pointing to an external domain, such as '/static/somefile.txt?redirect=http://evil.com/'Affected if The application redirects to the attacker-controlled domain instead of rejecting the external redirect parameter
You are affected if your Django version is in the vulnerable range AND your application uses django.views.static.serve() to serve static files, particularly in production environments where this view is accessible to end users.
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 1.10.7, 1.9.13, or 1.8.18 or later. Alternatively, avoid using django.views.static.serve() in production environments and use a proper web server for static file serving.
Fix this in Django
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,512.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-7234 — 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-2017-7234 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