1.6.10.txt 3.5 KB

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869
  1. ===========================
  2. Django 1.6.10 release notes
  3. ===========================
  4. *January 13, 2015*
  5. Django 1.6.10 fixes several security issues in 1.6.9.
  6. WSGI header spoofing via underscore/dash conflation
  7. ===================================================
  8. When HTTP headers are placed into the WSGI environ, they are normalized by
  9. converting to uppercase, converting all dashes to underscores, and prepending
  10. `HTTP_`. For instance, a header ``X-Auth-User`` would become
  11. ``HTTP_X_AUTH_USER`` in the WSGI environ (and thus also in Django's
  12. ``request.META`` dictionary).
  13. Unfortunately, this means that the WSGI environ cannot distinguish between
  14. headers containing dashes and headers containing underscores: ``X-Auth-User``
  15. and ``X-Auth_User`` both become ``HTTP_X_AUTH_USER``. This means that if a
  16. header is used in a security-sensitive way (for instance, passing
  17. authentication information along from a front-end proxy), even if the proxy
  18. carefully strips any incoming value for ``X-Auth-User``, an attacker may be
  19. able to provide an ``X-Auth_User`` header (with underscore) and bypass this
  20. protection.
  21. In order to prevent such attacks, both Nginx and Apache 2.4+ strip all headers
  22. containing underscores from incoming requests by default. Django's built-in
  23. development server now does the same. Django's development server is not
  24. recommended for production use, but matching the behavior of common production
  25. servers reduces the surface area for behavior changes during deployment.
  26. Mitigated possible XSS attack via user-supplied redirect URLs
  27. =============================================================
  28. Django relies on user input in some cases (e.g.
  29. :func:`django.contrib.auth.views.login` and :doc:`i18n </topics/i18n/index>`)
  30. to redirect the user to an "on success" URL. The security checks for these
  31. redirects (namely ``django.utils.http.is_safe_url()``) didn't strip leading
  32. whitespace on the tested URL and as such considered URLs like
  33. ``\njavascript:...`` safe. If a developer relied on ``is_safe_url()`` to
  34. provide safe redirect targets and put such a URL into a link, they could suffer
  35. from a XSS attack. This bug doesn't affect Django currently, since we only put
  36. this URL into the ``Location`` response header and browsers seem to ignore
  37. JavaScript there.
  38. Denial-of-service attack against ``django.views.static.serve``
  39. ==============================================================
  40. In older versions of Django, the :func:`django.views.static.serve` view read
  41. the files it served one line at a time. Therefore, a big file with no newlines
  42. would result in memory usage equal to the size of that file. An attacker could
  43. exploit this and launch a denial-of-service attack by simultaneously requesting
  44. many large files. This view now reads the file in chunks to prevent large
  45. memory usage.
  46. Note, however, that this view has always carried a warning that it is not
  47. hardened for production use and should be used only as a development aid. Now
  48. may be a good time to audit your project and serve your files in production
  49. using a real front-end web server if you are not doing so.
  50. Database denial-of-service with ``ModelMultipleChoiceField``
  51. ============================================================
  52. Given a form that uses ``ModelMultipleChoiceField`` and
  53. ``show_hidden_initial=True`` (not a documented API), it was possible for a user
  54. to cause an unreasonable number of SQL queries by submitting duplicate values
  55. for the field's data. The validation logic in ``ModelMultipleChoiceField`` now
  56. deduplicates submitted values to address this issue.