CVE-2023-41164

In Django 3.2 before 3.2.21, 4.1 before 4.1.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.5, django.utils.encoding.uri_to_iri() is subject to a potential DoS (denial of service) attack via certain inputs with a very large number of Unicode characters.

Weakness

The product receives input that is expected to specify a quantity (such as size or length), but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the quantity has the required properties.

Affected Software

Name	Vendor	Start Version	End Version
Django	Djangoproject	3.2 (including)	3.2.21 (excluding)
Django	Djangoproject	4.1 (including)	4.1.11 (excluding)
Django	Djangoproject	4.2 (including)	4.2.5 (excluding)
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.3 for RHEL 8	RedHat	automation-controller-0:4.3.16-1.el8ap	*
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.3 for RHEL 9	RedHat	automation-controller-0:4.3.16-1.el9ap	*
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.4 for RHEL 8	RedHat	python3x-django-0:3.2.21-1.el8ap	*
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.4 for RHEL 8	RedHat	automation-controller-0:4.4.6-1.el8ap	*
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.4 for RHEL 9	RedHat	python-django-0:3.2.21-1.el9ap	*
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.4 for RHEL 9	RedHat	automation-controller-0:4.4.6-1.el9ap	*
Red Hat Satellite 6.15 for RHEL 8	RedHat	python-django-0:4.2.9-1.el8pc	*
Red Hat Satellite 6.15 for RHEL 8	RedHat	python-django-0:4.2.9-1.el8pc	*
RHUI 4 for RHEL 8	RedHat	python-django-0:4.2.11-1.el8ui	*
Python-django	Ubuntu	bionic	*
Python-django	Ubuntu	devel	*
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	lunar	*
Python-django	Ubuntu	mantic	*
Python-django	Ubuntu	noble	*
Python-django	Ubuntu	oracular	*
Python-django	Ubuntu	plucky	*
Python-django	Ubuntu	questing	*
Python-django	Ubuntu	trusty	*
Python-django	Ubuntu	trusty/esm	*
Python-django	Ubuntu	upstream	*
Python-django	Ubuntu	xenial	*

Extended Description

Specified quantities include size, length, frequency, price, rate, number of operations, time, and others. Code may rely on specified quantities to allocate resources, perform calculations, control iteration, etc.

Potential Mitigations

Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.

NVD	https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-41164
CWE	https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1284.html

Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input

Weakness

Affected Software

Extended Description

Potential Mitigations

References