- Exploited
- No known exploitation
- Fix
- Fixed in 1.1.2
- Who is exposed
- Not reported
Do first: Upgrade to a fixed version: 1.1.2.
- Last modified
- 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? →
- 17/100 · provisional
- The rating the maker of the software gives it. Shown when it differs from the CVSS level.What do these mean? →
- High (ghsa)
- 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
Summary
djust, a Python web framework, has a cross-site scripting flaw in its template handling: a template binding can inherit a "safe" marking meant for a different value, so attacker-controlled content is rendered as live HTML and scripts. The bug requires the application to mark some value safe under a name that a template later rebinds, which is a common pattern, and it is fixed in version 1.1.2 and in 1.2.0.
Written by anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 from the sources below. Verify against them.
Read the original description
A context safety grant was inherited by a template binding that never earned it, so rebinding a name the view had marked safe left the mark attached to the new, attacker-controlled value.
djust's context safety channel is keyed by name, not by value. Every bind copied the value and left the grant in place:
view marks p = mark_safe('<b>trusted</b>')
template {% with p=user_input %}{{ p }}{% endwith %}
djust '<img src=x onerror=alert(1)>' <- executes
django '<img src=x onerror=alert(1)>'Affected binds
Eight distinct shapes were live. All are fixed in 1.1.2:
| shape | example | |---|---| | {% with %} rebinding a marked name | {% with p=hostile %}{{ p }}{% endwith %} | | {% with %} descendant of a rebound name | {% with p=hostile %}{{ p.a }}{% endwith %} | | {% with %} binding over a marked name | {% with q=hostile %}{{ q }}{% endwith %} | | {% for %} loop variable | {% for p in hostiles %}{{ p }}{% endfor %} | | {% for %} descendant | {% for p in hostiles %}{{ p.a }}{% endfor %} | | {% for %} tuple unpacking | {% for k, v in rows %}{{ v }}{% endfor %} | | {% include … with %} | {% include "c.html" with q=hostile %} | | assign tags | {% … as x %} |
No filter chain and no |safe anywhere in the template is required. The precondition is that the application marked *some* value safe under a name that a template later rebinds — an ordinary pattern, since a view commonly marks trusted markup safe and templates commonly reuse short names such as p, item or row.
Impact
Stored or reflected XSS in any djust application that combines mark_safe (or any framework path that grants a context key safety) with a template that rebinds that name. Exploitation requires no unusual template construct.
Patches
Fixed in 1.1.2, and in 1.2.0 (main).
The rule is that a bind replaces the grant rather than inheriting one. It is stated that way deliberately: the originally reported defects pointed the *opposite* direction — a grant being lost across some binds, causing over-escaping — and fixing only the reported direction would have left this leak in place. Both directions are the same rule.
Not fixed in 1.1.2, and tracked for 1.2.0: two over-escaping cases where a grant fails to travel with a value that legitimately carries one ({% with body=post.text|linebreaks %}, and mark_safe reaching a template through dict.values / dict.items). Both escape *more* than Django rather than less, so neither is a leak.
Workarounds
Before upgrading, avoid reusing a context name for both mark_safe'd content and untrusted input, and avoid rebinding such a name in {% with %}, {% for %}, {% include … with %} or an assign tag.
Credit
Found while preparing the 1.1.1 security release: the reproducer published in GHSA-9395-2g46-rj3f was run against the built 1.1.1 artifact before that advisory was published, and proved the class was still live. Publishing the original text would have reported this class as patched when it was not.
cve.now Index
- Exploitation?/40Unknown. No CISA SSVC exploitation rating yet
- Exposure?/25Unknown. No advisory context yet
- Reach10/20Affects PyPI packages
- Severity7/10Rated high by ghsa
- No patch0/5No signal
What would change the score
- Would score about 72 if added to CISA KEV
- Would score about 67 if CISA's SSVC rates exploitation active
- Would score about 39 if advisories confirm default setups are exposed
Impact
- Widely used
djust has 3.3k weekly downloads.Source: pypistats.org
What to do
Upgrade to a fixed version: 1.1.2.
Timeline
- Advisory published
- Record last updated
Affected versions
- djustPyPI
fixed in 1.1.2
Fixed in 1.1.2 (released Aug 30, 2026, 18 days before disclosure).
The latest release, 1.2.7, is not affected.
Evidence 3
- Advisory
- Repository
- Repository
Corrections
None so far.
Something wrong on this page? Report an error. Every fix is listed here.
Questions about GHSA-XJW9-38CR-6372
Is GHSA-XJW9-38CR-6372 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 GHSA-XJW9-38CR-6372?
djust (PyPI): before 1.1.2.Source: cve.now feed data
How do I fix GHSA-XJW9-38CR-6372?
Upgrade to a fixed version: 1.1.2.Source: cve.now feed data