dbcve.org
DjangoFramework / library · Djangoproject

CVE-2024-56374

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-01-14
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 4.2.18 / 5.0.11 or later.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
An issue was discovered in Django 5.1 before 5.1.5, 5.0 before 5.0.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.18. Lack of upper-bound limit enforcement in strings passed when performing IPv6 validation could lead to a potential denial-of-service attack. The undocumented and private functions clean_ipv6_address and is_valid_ipv6_address are vulnerable, as is the django.forms.GenericIPAddressField form field. (The django.db.models.GenericIPAddressField model field is not affected.)

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 confidence

Django's IPv6 address validation functions (clean_ipv6_address and is_valid_ipv6_address) lack upper-bound limit enforcement on input strings, allowing an attacker to submit excessively long strings that consume excessive CPU/processing time leading to denial-of-service. The django.forms.GenericIPAddressField form field is vulnerable while the model field is not.

MitigationUpgrade Django to version 5.1.5, 5.0.11, or 4.2.18 or later. Additionally, audit applications using django.forms.GenericIPAddressField and consider adding application-layer input length limits as defense-in-depth.

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
Affected:>= 4.2, < 4.2.18>= 5.0, < 5.0.11>= 5.1, < 5.1.5
Debian LinuxOperating system
Affected:= 11.0

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
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Check installed Django version
    Run 'python -c import django; print(django.VERSION)' or check your requirements/pip list for django package version
    Affected if Version is >= 4.2 and < 4.2.18, or >= 5.0 and < 5.0.11, or >= 5.1 and < 5.1.5
  2. Identify usage of GenericIPAddressField in forms
    Search your codebase for 'from django import forms' and 'GenericIPAddressField' in your forms.py files, or run 'grep -r "GenericIPAddressField" --include="*.py"' in your project directory
    Affected if Any form class uses GenericIPAddressField
  3. Check if GenericIPAddressField receives untrusted user input
    Review your views and forms to see if GenericIPAddressField is used in forms that process HTTP request data (e.g., Form classes bound to request.POST or request.GET)
    Affected if Forms with GenericIPAddressField are used to process external user input without application-layer length limits
  4. Inspect input length validation
    Look for 'max_length' parameters on GenericIPAddressField definitions or custom validators that limit input length, and check form cleaning methods for length checks
    Affected if No max_length is set on the field and no manual length validation exists in the form's clean method

You are affected if your Django version is in the vulnerable range AND your application uses django.forms.GenericIPAddressField to process external user input without enforcing input length limits.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 4.2.18 / 5.0.11 / 5.1.5 or later
Fixed in 4.2.185.0.115.1.5
Interim mitigation

Upgrade Django to version 5.1.5, 5.0.11, or 4.2.18 or later. Additionally, audit applications using django.forms.GenericIPAddressField and consider adding application-layer input length limits as defense-in-depth.

Recommended fix High confidence

Django 4.2.18, 5.0.11, or 5.1.5 (depending on your current major version branch)

  1. Check the currently installed Django version using `python -m django --version` or inspecting requirements.txt/Pipfile
  2. Upgrade Django to a fixed version based on your current major version: for Django 4.2.x upgrade to 4.2.18, for 5.0.x upgrade to 5.0.11, for 5.1.x upgrade to 5.1.5
  3. Run `pip install --upgrade Django==<fixed_version>` (e.g., `pip install --upgrade Django==5.1.5`)
  4. Verify the upgrade was successful by running `python -m django --version`
  5. Run your project's test suite to ensure no regressions were introduced
  6. If using GenericIPAddressField in forms, verify IPv6 validation still functions correctly in your application
Caveat Django patch releases typically contain only bug fixes and security patches with minimal breaking changes; however, always review the release notes for any behavior changes that may affect your application

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Django Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,930
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-56374 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-56374 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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