CVE-2024-22513
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 · unediteddjangorestframework-simplejwt version 5.3.1 and before is vulnerable to information disclosure. A user can access web application resources even after their account has been disabled due to missing user validation checks via the for_user method.
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 confidencedjangorestframework-simplejwt before version 5.3.1 fails to validate whether a user account is active or enabled when using the for_user method. This method allows retrieving tokens for any specified user without checking if that user's account has been disabled, permitting continued API access after account termination.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 if djangorestframework-simplejwt is installedRun 'pip show djangorestframework-simplejwt' or check your requirements.txt file for the packageAffected if The package is present in your environment
-
Determine the installed version of djangorestframework-simplejwtRun 'pip show djangorestframework-simplejwt' and note the Version fieldAffected if The version is before 5.3.1 (e.g., 5.3.0, 5.2.x, 5.1.x, etc.)
-
Check if your codebase uses the for_user methodSearch your codebase for occurrences of 'for_user' in your authentication or token-related codeAffected if The for_user method is used to retrieve tokens for specific users
-
Verify if custom user validation exists for the for_user methodExamine your token obtaining code that uses for_user and check if it includes explicit checks for user.is_active or user.is_enabled before calling for_userAffected if No explicit active/enabled user check is performed before or after calling for_user
-
Check if TOKEN_USER_CLASS is configured with proper validationLook for TOKEN_USER_CLASS setting in your Django settings and verify the configured user class implements is_active/is_enabled checks in its authentication flowAffected if TOKEN_USER_CLASS is not set or the configured user class lacks proper active status validation
You are affected if you use djangorestframework-simplejwt version below 5.3.1 and rely on the for_user method to obtain tokens without additional active user status validation in your code.
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 djangorestframework-simplejwt to version 5.3.2 or later, which includes proper user validation checks in the for_user method to reject requests for disabled accounts.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $1,904.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-22513 — 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-2024-22513 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