dbcve.org
AllauthApplication

CVE-2025-65431

MEDIUM · 5.4 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-12-15
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 65.13.0 or later.
See remediation →
60/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable 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 allauth-django before 65.13.0. Both Okta and NetIQ were using preferred_username as the identifier for third-party provider accounts. That value may be mutable and should therefore be avoided for authorization decisions. The providers are now using sub instead.

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

The allauth-django Okta and NetIQ OAuth/OIDC providers were using the mutable 'preferred_username' claim from the identity provider as the account identifier. Since this value can change over time, an attacker could potentially hijack accounts by exploiting this mutable identifier for authorization decisions. The fix changes both providers to use the immutable 'sub' (subject) claim instead.

MitigationUpgrade allauth-django to version 65.13.0 or later to obtain the fix that uses the immutable 'sub' claim instead of 'preferred_username' for account identification.

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
AllauthApplication
Affected:< 65.13.0

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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

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

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

  1. Check installed allauth-django version
    Run 'pip show django-allauth' or check your requirements.txt/file for the installed version
    Affected if Version is less than 65.13.0
  2. Verify if Okta OAuth/OIDC provider is configured
    Check your Django settings for 'SOCIALACCOUNT_PROVIDERS' with 'okta' configuration, or inspect any socialaccount provider files referencing Okta
    Affected if Okta provider is configured and allauth version is below 65.13.0
  3. Verify if NetIQ OAuth/OIDC provider is configured
    Check your Django settings for 'SOCIALACCOUNT_PROVIDERS' with 'netiq' configuration, or inspect any socialaccount provider files referencing NetIQ
    Affected if NetIQ provider is configured and allauth version is below 65.13.0
  4. Inspect the OAuth provider source code for claim usage
    Locate the allauth socialaccount provider module for Okta or NetIQ (typically in allauth/socialaccount/providers/okta/ or netiq/) and examine the user identity mapping code to see if 'preferred_username' is being used as the account identifier
    Affected if Code uses 'preferred_username' claim for account identification instead of the immutable 'sub' claim

You are affected if you are running allauth-django version below 65.13.0 and have Okta or NetIQ OAuth/OIDC providers configured, with the user identity mapping relying on the mutable 'preferred_username' claim.

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 65.13.0 or later
Fixed in 65.13.0
Interim mitigation

Upgrade allauth-django to version 65.13.0 or later to obtain the fix that uses the immutable 'sub' claim instead of 'preferred_username' for account identification.

Recommended fix High confidence

65.13.0

  1. Check current allauth version: pip show django-allauth
  2. Upgrade to version 65.13.0 or later: pip install django-allauth>=65.13.0
  3. Verify the upgrade was successful: pip show django-allauth
  4. Test authentication flows with Okta and NetIQ providers to confirm the fix is working correctly
Caveat Existing users who authenticated via Okta or NetIQ may be treated as new users since the identifier changed from preferred_username to sub - you may need to handle account migration/merging for existing users

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

Fix this in Allauth Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation3.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,900
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,040.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-65431 — 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-2025-65431 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