CVE-2020-25626
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 flaw was found in Django REST Framework versions before 3.12.0 and before 3.11.2. When using the browseable API viewer, Django REST Framework fails to properly escape certain strings that can come from user input. This allows a user who can control those strings to inject malicious <script> tags, leading to a cross-site-scripting (XSS) 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 confidenceDjango REST Framework's browseable API viewer fails to properly escape certain user-supplied strings, allowing injection of malicious <script> tags and resulting in a reflected cross-site-scripting (XSS) vulnerability. An attacker who can control strings displayed in the browseable API can execute arbitrary JavaScript in the context of other users' sessions.
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= 2.0= 11.0< 3.12.0CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/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 Django REST Framework versionRun pip show djangorestframework or check your requirements file to determine the installed version of the Django REST Framework packageAffected if The installed version is lower than 3.12.0 (any version from the 3.x series below 3.12.0 is affected)
-
Confirm browseable API is enabledInspect your Django REST Framework settings in settings.py or your REST_FRAMEWORK configuration file for the 'browseable_renderer' or 'renderers' option that includes the BrowseableAPIRenderer classAffected if The browseable API renderer is listed among enabled renderers in your configuration
-
Verify browseable API is accessibleCheck if any of your API endpoints are accessible through a web browser using the browsable interface (typically at / or /api/ endpoints)Affected if The browseable API viewer is actively accessible to users in your environment
-
Assess user input flow to browsable APIReview which API endpoints return user-supplied data (query parameters, request body fields, or database content) in responses rendered by the browseable APIAffected if User-controllable strings can be reflected in the browseable API output without sanitization
You are affected if Django REST Framework version is below 3.12.0 AND the browseable API renderer is enabled and accessible in your environment.
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 data3.12.0
Upgrade Django REST Framework to version 3.12.0 or 3.11.2 or later, which contains proper output escaping for the browseable API viewer.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-25626 — 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-2020-25626 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