Skip to content
CVE Ledger
  • Newest CVEsPage
  • Recently added to KEVPage
  • Rising exploitation (EPSS)Page
  • Weekly digestPage
  • StatisticsPage
  • WatchlistPage
  • API docsPage
  • MCP serverPage
  • AboutPage
  • Data sourcesPage
  • Data statusPage
  • ChangelogPage
  • How it's builtPage
  • Support the projectPage

14 results

Back

CVE-2026-61598Client mass-assignment of arbitrary view attributes via the default dj-model update_model handler

Description

djust provides Phoenix LiveView-style reactive server-side rendering for Django with Rust-powered performance. Prior to version 1.0.7, `djust.mixins.model_binding.ModelBindingMixin` provides a default `update_model` event handler and is part of the LiveView base MRO, so every LiveView exposes it. It `setattr`s a view attribute whose name is client-supplied (`field`), gated only by: reject `_`-prefixed names; reject a 14-entry denylist of framework internals (`FORBIDDEN_MODEL_FIELDS`); optional `allowed_model_fields` which defaults to None = allow all; and `hasattr` existence. As a result, a client can set any public, existing view attribute — not just the fields actually bound with `dj-model=` in the rendered template. The denylist covers framework plumbing but nothing about developer business/authz state, and the allowlist is opt-in (off by default). A developer who binds one `dj-model="search"` input and also keeps `self.account_id` / `self.is_admin` / `self.total_price` as view state does not realize a client can set ALL of them via `{type:event, event:"update_model", params:{field, value}}` over the WebSocket. Type coercion matches the target attribute's type (so `"true"` -> bool True), aiding the attacker. This issue is fixed in djust 1.0.7. As a workaround, set `allowed_model_fields` explicitly on every view using dj-model (or subclassing LiveView) to the minimal list of bindable fields; do not keep authorization/ownership state in public view attributes that share the view with dj-model bindings.

Timeline

  1. ID reserved

    By GitHub_M

  2. · 2 months later

    Published

Changes after publication (a new score, a public exploit, EPSS crossing 1, 10 or 50 %, leaving KEV) are kept since November 2026; earlier ones are not known.

Scores

CVSS scores of CVE-2026-61598, by who scored it
Scored byCVSSScoreVector
GitHub_MCNA (assigner)4.0High7.1CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
NVDNVD · Deferred4.0High7.1CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
EPSS (exploitation in 30 days)
0.43% · top 62% of all CVEs (12 Nov 2026)
CISA SSVC
Exploitation: none · Automatable: no · Technical impact: partial
Loading the EPSS history…

The list uses the assigner's score when there is one, then CISA's, then NVD's: High 7.1.

Affected products

Affected packages

From reviewed advisories of the GitHub Advisory Database.

References

References2

Sources

The same CVE in the primary databases and aggregators, to check against.

Badge for a README or a ticket

CVE-2026-61598 badge
[![CVE-2026-61598](https://cveledger.app/badge/CVE-2026-61598.svg)](https://cveledger.app/cve/CVE-2026-61598)

Record last updated .