DjangoFramework / library · Djangoproject
CVE-2026-5766
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.5 and 5.2 before 5.2.14. ASGI requests with a missing or understated `Content-Length` header can bypass the `FILE_UPLOAD_MAX_MEMORY_SIZE` limit, potentially loading large files into memory and causing service degradation. As a reminder, Django expects a limit to be configured at the web server level rather than solely relying on `FILE_UPLOAD_MAX_MEMORY_SIZE`. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected. Django would like to thank Kyle Agronick for reporting this issue.
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's ASGI request handling fails to properly enforce the FILE_UPLOAD_MAX_MEMORY_SIZE limit when the Content-Length header is missing or understated. This allows attackers to send requests with large file payloads that bypass memory protections, potentially loading entire files into memory and causing denial of service through resource exhaustion.
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
>= 5.2, < 5.2.14>= 6.0, < 6.0.5CVSS 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
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
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 Django versionRun `python -c 'import django; print(django.get_version())'` or check your requirements lock fileAffected if Version is >= 5.2.0 and < 5.2.14, or >= 6.0.0 and < 6.0.5
-
Verify ASGI is being usedCheck your deployment configuration for ASGI server (e.g., uvicorn, daphne, hypercorn) or look for asgi.py in your projectAffected if The application runs on ASGI - the vulnerability exists specifically in ASGI request handling, not WSGI
-
Confirm file uploads are handledSearch codebase for `request.FILES` usage or `UploadedFile` imports in views, or check if multipart/form-data requests are acceptedAffected if The application processes file uploads via request.FILES - without file upload functionality, the attack surface does not exist
-
Inspect FILE_UPLOAD_MAX_MEMORY_SIZE settingCheck settings.py for FILE_UPLOAD_MAX_MEMORY_SIZE value or run `python manage.py shell -c "from django.conf import settings; print(settings.FILE_UPLOAD_MAX_MEMORY_SIZE)"`Affected if This setting exists and controls memory limits, but the vulnerability bypasses it when Content-Length is missing or understated
You are affected if your Django version falls in the vulnerable range, you run on ASGI, your application accepts file uploads, and you lack web server-level upload size limits as a compensating control.
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 · scoped5.2.146.0.5
Upgrade Django to version 6.0.5+ or 5.2.14+ and configure upload limits at the web server level (e.g., nginx client_max_body_size, Apache LimitRequestBody) as Django recommends, rather than relying solely on FILE_UPLOAD_MAX_MEMORY_SIZE.
Django 5.2.14 (for 5.2.x branch) or Django 6.0.5 (for 6.0.x branch)
- 1. Check current Django version by running: python -c "import django; print(django.get_version())"
- 2. If using Django 5.2.x, upgrade to 5.2.14: pip install --upgrade "Django>=5.2.14,<5.3"
- 3. If using Django 6.0.x, upgrade to 6.0.5: pip install --upgrade "Django>=6.0.5,<6.1"
- 4. Verify the upgrade was successful by running: python -c "import django; print(django.get_version())"
- 5. Run your test suite to ensure the upgrade does not break existing functionality
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Django
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-5766 — 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-2026-5766 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