CVE-2026-61598

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

HIGH
7.1
CVSS Score
Published: September 16, 2026 at 01:59 PM UTC
Updated: September 30, 2026 at 05:51 PM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorDjust

Using djust by djust-org?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect djust - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
HIGH7.1
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.4%
SSVC
No known exploit

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.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

v < 1.0.7
Affected range stops below 1.0.7, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

Remediation

No guide yet

No remediation guidance has been written for this CVE yet, and no fixed version or vendor advisory is recorded against it.

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitNot automatablePartial impact

SSVC signals action urgency (what to patch first), separate from CVSS which measures severity.

CVSS

7.1HIGHGitHub_M
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusDEFERRED
CWE
CWE-915

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card