An issue was discovered in the Multipart Request Parser in Django 3.2 before 3.2.18, 4.0 before 4.0.10, and 4.1 before 4.1.7. Passing certain inputs (e.g., an excessive number of parts) to multipart forms could result in too many open files or memory exhaustion, and provided a potential vector for a denial-of-service attack.
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Django | Djangoproject | 3.2 (including) | 3.2.18 (excluding) |
| Django | Djangoproject | 4.0 (including) | 4.0.10 (excluding) |
| Django | Djangoproject | 4.1 (including) | 4.1.7 (excluding) |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.4 for RHEL 8 | RedHat | automation-controller-0:4.4.2-1.el8ap | * |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.4 for RHEL 9 | RedHat | automation-controller-0:4.4.2-1.el9ap | * |
| Red Hat Satellite 6.13 for RHEL 8 | RedHat | python-django-0:3.2.18-1.el8pc | * |
| Red Hat Satellite 6.13 for RHEL 8 | RedHat | python-django-0:3.2.18-1.el8pc | * |
| RHUI 4 for RHEL 8 | RedHat | python-django-0:3.2.18-1.0.1.el8ui | * |
| Python-django | Ubuntu | bionic | * |
| Python-django | Ubuntu | devel | * |
| Python-django | Ubuntu | esm-infra-legacy/trusty | * |
| Python-django | Ubuntu | esm-infra/bionic | * |
| Python-django | Ubuntu | esm-infra/focal | * |
| Python-django | Ubuntu | esm-infra/xenial | * |
| Python-django | Ubuntu | focal | * |
| Python-django | Ubuntu | jammy | * |
| Python-django | Ubuntu | kinetic | * |
| Python-django | Ubuntu | lunar | * |
| Python-django | Ubuntu | mantic | * |
| Python-django | Ubuntu | noble | * |
| Python-django | Ubuntu | oracular | * |
| Python-django | Ubuntu | plucky | * |
| Python-django | Ubuntu | trusty | * |
| Python-django | Ubuntu | trusty/esm | * |
| Python-django | Ubuntu | upstream | * |
| Python-django | Ubuntu | xenial | * |
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:
The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question.
The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute – and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.