CVE-2026-6873
An issue was discovered in Django 6.0 before 6.0.6 and 5.2 before 5.2.15. `django.http.HttpRequest.get_signed_cookie` in Django uses a non-injective salt derivation (concatenating the cookie name and salt argument), which allows a remote attacker to use a cookie in a context different from the one where it was signed, via distinct `(name, salt)` pairs that produce the same concatenation. 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 Peng Zhou for reporting this issue.
Vulnerability Summary
CVSS v3 Score
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CWE Classification
Related Vulnerabilities
Same Weakness Type(CWE-347)
OP-TEE is a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) designed as companion to a non-secure Linux kernel running on Arm; Cortex-A cores using the TrustZone technology. Prior to version 4.11.0, on many of the ECDH shared secret paths, the public key isn't verified to be a point on the correct curve. By passing approximately 30-40 crafted public keys to OP-TEE, the private key can be reconstructed by a normal world attacker. When calling TEE_DeriveKey the public key is provided with full X and Y values, but the (X, Y) point might not satisfy the `Y^2 == X^3 + aX + b mod P` math for the specific curve that is used. When those public keys aren't rejected, the attacker can select public keys such that each DeriveKey call will leak `d % r` where `d` is the private key and `r` comes from the relationship between the correct curve and the attacker selected curve. With enough leaked data the Chinese remainder theorem can be used to recover the full private key. Version 4.11.0 fixes the issue.
A improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 7.6.0 through 7.6.3, FortiOS 7.4.0 through 7.4.8, FortiOS 7.2.0 through 7.2.11, FortiOS 7.0.0 through 7.0.17, FortiProxy 7.6.0 through 7.6.3, FortiProxy 7.4.0 through 7.4.10, FortiProxy 7.2.0 through 7.2.14, FortiProxy 7.0.0 through 7.0.21, FortiSwitchManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.6, FortiSwitchManager 7.0.0 through 7.0.5 allows an unauthenticated attacker to bypass the FortiCloud SSO login authentication via a crafted SAML response message.
The ruby-saml library is for implementing the client side of a SAML authorization. ruby-saml versions up to and including 1.12.4 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability due to an incomplete fix for CVE-2025-25292. ReXML and Nokogiri parse XML differently, generating entirely different document structures from the same input. This allows an attacker to execute a Signature Wrapping attack. This issue is fixed in version 1.18.0.
gnark is a zero-knowledge proof system framework. In versions prior to 0.14.0, the Verify function in eddsa.go and ecdsa.go used the S value from a signature without asserting that 0 ≤ S < order, leading to a signature malleability vulnerability. Because gnark’s native EdDSA and ECDSA circuits lack essential constraints, multiple distinct witnesses can satisfy the same public inputs. In protocols where nullifiers or anti-replay checks are derived from R and S, this enables signature malleability and may allow double spending. This issue has been addressed in version 0.14.0.
A potential security vulnerability has been identified in the HP Linux Imaging and Printing Software documentation. This potential vulnerability is due to the use of a weak code signing key, Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA).
Similar SeverityLOW
An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.15 and 6.0 before 6.0.6. `django.middleware.cache.UpdateCacheMiddleware` in Django does not match `Cache-Control` response directives case-insensitively, which allows remote attackers to read responses that were incorrectly cached because their `Cache-Control` directives used uppercase or mixed-case values. 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 Ahmed Badawe for reporting this issue.
An issue was discovered in Django 6.0 before 6.0.6 and 5.2 before 5.2.15. `django.core.mail.backends.smtp.EmailBackend` in Django fails to prevent reuse of a partially-initialized connection after a failed `STARTTLS` handshake when `fail_silently=True`, which allows on-path network attackers to read email content via cleartext interception. 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 Kasper Dupont for reporting this issue.
An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.15 and 6.0 before 6.0.6. `django.utils.cache.has_vary_header()` in Django does not strip leading or trailing whitespace from `Vary` response header values before comparison, which allows remote attackers to read cached responses via requests to URLs whose responses contain whitespace-padded Vary header values. 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 Navid Rezazadeh for reporting this issue.
daphne before 4.2.2 reconstructs a raw HTTP request from Twisted's parsed headers and feeds it to autobahn for WebSocket handshake processing. Twisted does not treat \x0b, \x0c, \x1c, \x1d, \x1e, or \x85 as header line separators, but autobahn decodes header values to str and calls splitlines(). An attacker can exploit this parser differential to inject additional headers into the ASGI scope passed to the application. daphne now rejects requests with these bytes in any header value with a 400 response.
An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.15 and 6.0 before 6.0.6. `django.middleware.cache.UpdateCacheMiddleware` in Django does not add `Authorization` to the `Vary` response header for requests bearing that header without `Cache-Control: public`, which allows remote attackers to read private cached responses via unauthenticated requests to the same URL. 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 Shai Berger for reporting this issue.
Learn More
View this score breakdown or calculate a custom score
Learn how severity scores are calculated and what they mean
Best practices for deciding which vulnerabilities to address first
Essential guide to Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures