DaphneFramework / library · Djangoproject
CVE-2026-44545
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 · unediteddaphne before 4.2.2 did not pass maxFramePayloadSize or maxMessagePayloadSize to Autobahn's WebSocketServerFactory. Because Autobahn defaults both values to 0 (unlimited), an unauthenticated remote attacker could send arbitrarily large WebSocket messages or frames, causing excessive memory consumption and a denial of service.
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 confidenceDaphne before 4.2.2 fails to pass maxFramePayloadSize and maxMessagePayloadSize parameters to Autobahn's WebSocketServerFactory, causing it to use default values of 0 (unlimited). This allows unauthenticated remote attackers to send arbitrarily large WebSocket messages or frames, exhausting server memory and causing denial of service.
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
DaphneFramework / library
< 4.2.2CVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check installed Daphne versionRun 'pip show daphne' or 'pip list | grep daphne' to see the installed versionAffected if The version shown is earlier than 4.2.2
-
Confirm WebSocket usageInspect your Django application configuration and deployed ASGI routes to determine if WebSocket connections (websockets or channel layers) are enabled and usedAffected if WebSocket routes are defined and Daphne serves WebSocket connections
-
Check WebSocket payload limit configurationReview Daphne or ASGI configuration files for maxFramePayloadSize or maxMessagePayloadSize settings; verify these limits are actually enforced at runtimeAffected if No payload limits are configured or limits are not being applied to the Autobahn WebSocket factory
If Daphne version is below 4.2.2 AND your application accepts WebSocket connections, the payload size limits are not being enforced, allowing unlimited message sizes and potential memory exhaustion.
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 · scoped4.2.2
Upgrade to Daphne 4.2.2 or later which properly configures WebSocket payload size limits. Consider implementing additional WebSocket rate limiting at the application or infrastructure level as defense-in-depth.
Daphne 4.2.2 or later
- Check the currently installed Daphne version by running: pip show daphne or pip freeze | grep daphne
- Upgrade Daphne to version 4.2.2 or later using: pip install --upgrade daphne>=4.2.2
- Verify the installed version: pip show daphne
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Daphne
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2026-44545 — 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-2026-44545 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