DjangoFramework / library · Djangoproject
CVE-2019-14234
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in Django 1.11.x before 1.11.23, 2.1.x before 2.1.11, and 2.2.x before 2.2.4. Due to an error in shallow key transformation, key and index lookups for django.contrib.postgres.fields.JSONField, and key lookups for django.contrib.postgres.fields.HStoreField, were subject to SQL injection. This could, for example, be exploited via crafted use of "OR 1=1" in a key or index name to return all records, using a suitably crafted dictionary, with dictionary expansion, as the **kwargs passed to the QuerySet.filter() function.
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 confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in Django's PostgreSQL JSONField and HStoreField due to improper shallow key transformation. Attackers can inject arbitrary SQL via crafted key or index names in filter() queries using dictionary expansion, potentially returning all records through 'OR 1=1' type payloads.
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
>= 1.11, < 1.11.23>= 2.1, < 2.1.11>= 2.2, < 2.2.4
FedoraOperating system
= 30
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 9.0= 10.0CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/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.
-
Check Django versionRun 'python -c import django; print(django.get_version())' or check the installed package version via pipAffected if The installed version is >=1.11 and <1.11.23, or >=2.1 and <2.1.11, or >=2.2 and <2.2.4
-
Confirm PostgreSQL backend in useInspect settings.py and verify the DATABASESENGINE setting is set to 'django.db.backends.postgresql'Affected if PostgreSQL backend is used with Django versions in the affected ranges
-
Identify JSONField or HStoreField usageSearch codebase for imports and model definitions containing 'JSONField' or 'HStoreField' from 'django.contrib.postgres.fields'Affected if Codebase contains Django model fields using JSONField or HStoreField from django.contrib.postgres
-
Find filter() with dictionary expansionSearch code for filter(** variable patterns, particularly where user-supplied dictionaries are unpacked into filter() callsAffected if Application code passes dictionary expansion to filter() on models containing JSONField or HStoreField, especially with untrusted input
A system is affected if it runs a vulnerable Django version (1.11.x <1.11.23, 2.1.x <2.1.11, or 2.2.x <2.2.4) with PostgreSQL and uses JSONField or HStoreField with dictionary expansion in filter() calls where keys could be user-controlled.
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.
dbcve · scoped1.11.232.1.112.2.4
Upgrade Django to version 1.11.23+, 2.1.11+, or 2.2.4+ to patch the vulnerability. If immediate upgrade is not possible, avoid passing user-controlled input as keys in JSONField/HStoreField filter() calls.
Django 1.11.23, 2.1.11, or 2.2.4 (select based on your current major.minor version)
- 1. Identify your current Django version by running 'python -c "import django; print(django.get_version())"'
- 2. Determine which Django branch you are on (1.11.x, 2.1.x, or 2.2.x)
- 3. Upgrade Django to the corresponding fixed version: pip install --upgrade Django==1.11.23 (for 1.11.x), Django==2.1.11 (for 2.1.x), or Django==2.2.4 (for 2.2.x)
- 4. Verify the upgrade was successful: python -c "import django; print(django.get_version())"
- 5. Run your application's test suite to verify functionality
- 6. Deploy to production environment
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Django
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $2,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-14234 — 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-2019-14234 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