diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'docs')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/releases/1.4.18.txt | 14 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/releases/1.6.10.txt | 14 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/releases/1.7.3.txt | 14 |
3 files changed, 42 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/releases/1.4.18.txt b/docs/releases/1.4.18.txt index 55256cfdf3..2da42533bd 100644 --- a/docs/releases/1.4.18.txt +++ b/docs/releases/1.4.18.txt @@ -31,6 +31,20 @@ development server now does the same. Django's development server is not recommended for production use, but matching the behavior of common production servers reduces the surface area for behavior changes during deployment. +Mitigated possible XSS attack via user-supplied redirect URLs +============================================================= + +Django relies on user input in some cases (e.g. +:func:`django.contrib.auth.views.login` and :doc:`i18n </topics/i18n/index>`) +to redirect the user to an "on success" URL. The security checks for these +redirects (namely ``django.util.http.is_safe_url()``) didn't strip leading +whitespace on the tested URL and as such considered URLs like +``\njavascript:...`` safe. If a developer relied on ``is_safe_url()`` to +provide safe redirect targets and put such a URL into a link, they could suffer +from a XSS attack. This bug doesn't affect Django currently, since we only put +this URL into the ``Location`` response header and browsers seem to ignore +JavaScript there. + Bugfixes ======== diff --git a/docs/releases/1.6.10.txt b/docs/releases/1.6.10.txt index dafee70c8c..92b709d25d 100644 --- a/docs/releases/1.6.10.txt +++ b/docs/releases/1.6.10.txt @@ -29,3 +29,17 @@ containing underscores from incoming requests by default. Django's built-in development server now does the same. Django's development server is not recommended for production use, but matching the behavior of common production servers reduces the surface area for behavior changes during deployment. + +Mitigated possible XSS attack via user-supplied redirect URLs +============================================================= + +Django relies on user input in some cases (e.g. +:func:`django.contrib.auth.views.login` and :doc:`i18n </topics/i18n/index>`) +to redirect the user to an "on success" URL. The security checks for these +redirects (namely ``django.util.http.is_safe_url()``) didn't strip leading +whitespace on the tested URL and as such considered URLs like +``\njavascript:...`` safe. If a developer relied on ``is_safe_url()`` to +provide safe redirect targets and put such a URL into a link, they could suffer +from a XSS attack. This bug doesn't affect Django currently, since we only put +this URL into the ``Location`` response header and browsers seem to ignore +JavaScript there. diff --git a/docs/releases/1.7.3.txt b/docs/releases/1.7.3.txt index 20d0b59457..0980c67d9d 100644 --- a/docs/releases/1.7.3.txt +++ b/docs/releases/1.7.3.txt @@ -30,6 +30,20 @@ development server now does the same. Django's development server is not recommended for production use, but matching the behavior of common production servers reduces the surface area for behavior changes during deployment. +Mitigated possible XSS attack via user-supplied redirect URLs +============================================================= + +Django relies on user input in some cases (e.g. +:func:`django.contrib.auth.views.login` and :doc:`i18n </topics/i18n/index>`) +to redirect the user to an "on success" URL. The security checks for these +redirects (namely ``django.util.http.is_safe_url()``) didn't strip leading +whitespace on the tested URL and as such considered URLs like +``\njavascript:...`` safe. If a developer relied on ``is_safe_url()`` to +provide safe redirect targets and put such a URL into a link, they could suffer +from a XSS attack. This bug doesn't affect Django currently, since we only put +this URL into the ``Location`` response header and browsers seem to ignore +JavaScript there. + Bugfixes ======== |