Potential exposure of private data via empty and missing Vary headers
Written by anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 from the sources below. Verify against them.
- Exploited
- No known exploitation
- Fix
- Fixed in 6.1.3, 6.0.10, 5.2.19
- Who is exposed
- Not reported
Do first: Upgrade to a fixed version: 6.1.3, 6.0.10, 5.2.19.
- Exploitation0/40No signal
- Exposure7/25Reachable over the network without a login · Data gap: No advisory context yet
- Reach20/20django: 11.9M downloads a week
- Severity3.1/10CVSS 3.1
- No patch0/5No signal
What would change the score
- Would score about 85 if added to CISA KEV
- Would score about 80 if CISA's SSVC rates exploitation active
- Would score about 45 if advisories confirm default setups are exposed
CVE-2026-113593 is not in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog. No public exploit code is tracked. It is rated CVSS 3.1 (low) and affects Django; fixed in 6.1.3, 6.0.10 and 5.2.19.
- Last modified
- Where the record stands: published, rejected by its publisher, or superseded by another id.What do these mean? →
- Published
- Whether CISA lists it in its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog: proof that attackers are using it.What do these mean? →
- Not listed in CISA KEV
- A 0-100 score for how much a CVE matters across the industry: exploitation, exposure, how widely the software is used, severity and whether a fix exists.What do these mean? →
- 30/100 · provisional
- Fix
- Fixed in 6.1.3, 6.0.10, 5.2.19
- Whether working attack code is public (Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei or GitHub). Public code makes attacks easier.What do these mean? →
- None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub
- Exploitation: none
- Automatable: no
- Technical impact: partial
Summary
Django web framework versions in the 5.2, 6.0, and 6.1 series are affected, along with possibly older unsupported releases. The flaw can allow remote attackers to access private data that was cached for a different user's request.
Read the original description
An issue was discovered in Django 6.1 before 6.1.3, 6.0 before 6.0.10, and 5.2 before 5.2.19. The `django.middleware.cache.UpdateCacheMiddleware` and the `django.views.decorators.cache.cache_page()` decorator generate identical cache keys for requests that omit a header listed in the response’s `Vary` header and requests that include that header with an empty value, potentially allowing remote attackers to access private data cached for another request. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.1.x, 5.0.x, and 4.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected. Django would like to thank Andrew Gonzalez for reporting this issue.
Impact
- Widely used
django has 11.9m weekly downloads.Source: pypistats.org
12.1k packages depend on django.Source: deps.dev
What to do
Upgrade to a fixed version: 6.1.3, 6.0.10, 5.2.19.
Timeline
- CVE published
- First seen by cve.now
- CISA SSVC assessment
Exploitation: none · Automatable: no · Technical impact: partial
- Record last updated
Affected versions
- djangoPyPI
From 6.1 · fixed in 6.1.3; From 6.0 · fixed in 6.0.10; From 5.2 · fixed in 5.2.19
Evidence 7
- Advisory
- Advisory
- Patch
- Patch
- Patch
Show all 7 sourcesShow fewer sources
- Patch
- Link
Corrections
None so far.
Something wrong on this page? Report an error. Every fix is listed here.
Questions about CVE-2026-113593
Is CVE-2026-113593 being exploited?
It is not in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and CISA's SSVC assessment does not mark exploitation as active. That does not mean it has not been attacked: vendors and researchers can report attacks before CISA lists them. No public exploit code is tracked.Source: cve.now feed data
Which versions are affected by CVE-2026-113593?
django (PyPI): from 6.1 before 6.1.3; from 6.0 before 6.0.10; from 5.2 before 5.2.19.Source: cve.now feed data
How do I fix CVE-2026-113593?
Upgrade to a fixed version: 6.1.3, 6.0.10, 5.2.19.Source: cve.now feed data