deardaniel/secdata-raw huggingface dataset:
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-6426-9fv3-65x8
Package: Django (PIP)
Severity: MODERATE (CVSS 5.4)
CWE: CWE-89: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')
Vulnerable versions: >= 6.0a1, < 6.0.2
Patched in: 6.0.2

Summary: Django has an SQL Injection issue

Details:
An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.2, 5.2 before 5.2.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.28.

`.QuerySet.order_by()` is subject to SQL injection in column aliases containing periods when the same alias is, using a suitably crafted dictionary, with dictionary expansion, used in `FilteredRelation`. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.

Django would like to thank Solomon Kebede for reporting this issue.
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-gvg8-93h5-g6qq
Package: Django (PIP)
Severity: HIGH (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-89: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')
Vulnerable versions: >= 4.2a1, < 4.2.28
Patched in: 4.2.28

Summary: Django has an SQL Injection issue

Details:
An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.2, 5.2 before 5.2.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.28.

`FilteredRelation` is subject to SQL injection in column aliases via control characters, using a suitably crafted dictionary, with dictionary expansion, as the `**kwargs` passed to `QuerySet` methods `annotate()`, `aggregate()`, `extra()`, `values()`, `values_list()`, and `alias()`. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.

Django would like to thank Solomon Kebede for reporting this issue.
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-gvg8-93h5-g6qq
Package: Django (PIP)
Severity: HIGH (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-89: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')
Vulnerable versions: >= 5.2a1, < 5.2.11
Patched in: 5.2.11

Summary: Django has an SQL Injection issue

Details:
An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.2, 5.2 before 5.2.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.28.

`FilteredRelation` is subject to SQL injection in column aliases via control characters, using a suitably crafted dictionary, with dictionary expansion, as the `**kwargs` passed to `QuerySet` methods `annotate()`, `aggregate()`, `extra()`, `values()`, `values_list()`, and `alias()`. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.

Django would like to thank Solomon Kebede for reporting this issue.
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-gvg8-93h5-g6qq
Package: Django (PIP)
Severity: HIGH (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-89: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')
Vulnerable versions: >= 6.0a1, < 6.0.2
Patched in: 6.0.2

Summary: Django has an SQL Injection issue

Details:
An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.2, 5.2 before 5.2.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.28.

`FilteredRelation` is subject to SQL injection in column aliases via control characters, using a suitably crafted dictionary, with dictionary expansion, as the `**kwargs` passed to `QuerySet` methods `annotate()`, `aggregate()`, `extra()`, `values()`, `values_list()`, and `alias()`. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.

Django would like to thank Solomon Kebede for reporting this issue.
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-mwm9-4648-f68q
Package: Django (PIP)
Severity: HIGH (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-89: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')
Vulnerable versions: >= 4.2a1, < 4.2.28
Patched in: 4.2.28

Summary: Django has an SQL Injection issue

Details:
An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.2, 5.2 before 5.2.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.28.

Raster lookups on ``RasterField`` (only implemented on PostGIS) allows remote attackers to inject SQL via the band index parameter. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.

Django would like to thank Tarek Nakkouch for reporting this issue.
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-mwm9-4648-f68q
Package: Django (PIP)
Severity: HIGH (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-89: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')
Vulnerable versions: >= 5.2a1, < 5.2.11
Patched in: 5.2.11

Summary: Django has an SQL Injection issue

Details:
An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.2, 5.2 before 5.2.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.28.

Raster lookups on ``RasterField`` (only implemented on PostGIS) allows remote attackers to inject SQL via the band index parameter. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.

Django would like to thank Tarek Nakkouch for reporting this issue.
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-mwm9-4648-f68q
Package: Django (PIP)
Severity: HIGH (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-89: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')
Vulnerable versions: >= 6.0a1, < 6.0.2
Patched in: 6.0.2

Summary: Django has an SQL Injection issue

Details:
An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.2, 5.2 before 5.2.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.28.

Raster lookups on ``RasterField`` (only implemented on PostGIS) allows remote attackers to inject SQL via the band index parameter. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.

Django would like to thank Tarek Nakkouch for reporting this issue.
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-4rrr-2h4v-f3j9
Package: Django (PIP)
Severity: LOW (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-407: Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity
Vulnerable versions: >= 4.2a1, < 4.2.28
Patched in: 4.2.28

Summary: Django has Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity

Details:
An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.2, 5.2 before 5.2.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.28.

`django.utils.text.Truncator.chars()` and `Truncator.words()` methods (with `html=True`) and the `truncatechars_html` and `truncatewords_html` template filters allow a remote attacker to cause a potential denial-of-service via crafted inputs containing a large number of unmatched HTML end tags. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.

Django would like to thank Seokchan Yoon for reporting this issue.
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-4rrr-2h4v-f3j9
Package: Django (PIP)
Severity: LOW (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-407: Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity
Vulnerable versions: >= 5.2a1, < 5.2.11
Patched in: 5.2.11

Summary: Django has Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity

Details:
An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.2, 5.2 before 5.2.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.28.

`django.utils.text.Truncator.chars()` and `Truncator.words()` methods (with `html=True`) and the `truncatechars_html` and `truncatewords_html` template filters allow a remote attacker to cause a potential denial-of-service via crafted inputs containing a large number of unmatched HTML end tags. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.

Django would like to thank Seokchan Yoon for reporting this issue.
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-4rrr-2h4v-f3j9
Package: Django (PIP)
Severity: LOW (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-407: Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity
Vulnerable versions: >= 6.0a1, < 6.0.2
Patched in: 6.0.2

Summary: Django has Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity

Details:
An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.2, 5.2 before 5.2.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.28.

`django.utils.text.Truncator.chars()` and `Truncator.words()` methods (with `html=True`) and the `truncatechars_html` and `truncatewords_html` template filters allow a remote attacker to cause a potential denial-of-service via crafted inputs containing a large number of unmatched HTML end tags. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.

Django would like to thank Seokchan Yoon for reporting this issue.
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-33mw-q7rj-mjwj
Package: Django (PIP)
Severity: LOW (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-407: Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity
Vulnerable versions: >= 4.2a1, < 4.2.28
Patched in: 4.2.28

Summary: Django has Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity

Details:
An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.2, 5.2 before 5.2.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.28.

`ASGIRequest` allows a remote attacker to cause a potential denial-of-service via a crafted request with multiple duplicate headers.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.

Django would like to thank Jiyong Yang for reporting this issue.
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-33mw-q7rj-mjwj
Package: Django (PIP)
Severity: LOW (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-407: Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity
Vulnerable versions: >= 5.2a1, < 5.2.11
Patched in: 5.2.11

Summary: Django has Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity

Details:
An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.2, 5.2 before 5.2.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.28.

`ASGIRequest` allows a remote attacker to cause a potential denial-of-service via a crafted request with multiple duplicate headers.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.

Django would like to thank Jiyong Yang for reporting this issue.
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-33mw-q7rj-mjwj
Package: Django (PIP)
Severity: LOW (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-407: Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity
Vulnerable versions: >= 6.0a1, < 6.0.2
Patched in: 6.0.2

Summary: Django has Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity

Details:
An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.2, 5.2 before 5.2.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.28.

`ASGIRequest` allows a remote attacker to cause a potential denial-of-service via a crafted request with multiple duplicate headers.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.

Django would like to thank Jiyong Yang for reporting this issue.
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-2mcm-79hx-8fxw
Package: Django (PIP)
Severity: LOW (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-208: Observable Timing Discrepancy
Vulnerable versions: >= 4.2a1, < 4.2.28
Patched in: 4.2.28

Summary: Django has Observable Timing Discrepancy

Details:
An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.2, 5.2 before 5.2.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.28.

The `django.contrib.auth.handlers.modwsgi.check_password()` function for authentication via `mod_wsgi` allows remote attackers to enumerate users via a timing attack. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.

Django would like to thank Stackered for reporting this issue.
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-2mcm-79hx-8fxw
Package: Django (PIP)
Severity: LOW (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-208: Observable Timing Discrepancy
Vulnerable versions: >= 5.2a1, < 5.2.11
Patched in: 5.2.11

Summary: Django has Observable Timing Discrepancy

Details:
An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.2, 5.2 before 5.2.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.28.

The `django.contrib.auth.handlers.modwsgi.check_password()` function for authentication via `mod_wsgi` allows remote attackers to enumerate users via a timing attack. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.

Django would like to thank Stackered for reporting this issue.
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-2mcm-79hx-8fxw
Package: Django (PIP)
Severity: LOW (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-208: Observable Timing Discrepancy
Vulnerable versions: >= 6.0a1, < 6.0.2
Patched in: 6.0.2

Summary: Django has Observable Timing Discrepancy

Details:
An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.2, 5.2 before 5.2.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.28.

The `django.contrib.auth.handlers.modwsgi.check_password()` function for authentication via `mod_wsgi` allows remote attackers to enumerate users via a timing attack. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.

Django would like to thank Stackered for reporting this issue.
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-4qvv-g3vr-m348
Package: wagtail (PIP)
Severity: MODERATE (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-862: Missing Authorization
Vulnerable versions: = 7.3rc1
Patched in: 7.3

Summary: Wagtail has improper permission handling on admin preview endpoints

Details:
### Impact
Due to a missing permission check on the preview endpoints, a user with access to the Wagtail admin and knowledge of a model's fields can craft a form submission to obtain a preview rendering of any page, snippet or site setting object for which previews are enabled, consisting of any data of the user's choosing. The existing data of the object itself is not exposed, but depending on the nature of the template being rendered, this may expose other database contents that would otherwise only be accessible to users with edit access over the model. The vulnerability is not exploitable by an ordinary site visitor without access to the Wagtail admin.

### Patches
Patched versions have been released as Wagtail 6.3.6, 7.0.4, 7.1.3 and 7.2.2. The new 7.3 feature release also incorporates this fix.

### Workarounds
No workaround is available.

### Acknowledgements

Many thanks to @thxtech for reporting this issue.

### For more information

If there are any questions or comments about this advisory:

- Visit Wagtail's [support channels](https://docs.wagtail.io/en/stable/support.html)
- Send an email to [security@wagtail.org](mailto:security@wagtail.org) (view our [security policy](https://github.com/wagtail/wagtail/security/policy) for more information).
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-4qvv-g3vr-m348
Package: wagtail (PIP)
Severity: MODERATE (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-862: Missing Authorization
Vulnerable versions: >= 7.2rc1, <= 7.2.1
Patched in: 7.2.2

Summary: Wagtail has improper permission handling on admin preview endpoints

Details:
### Impact
Due to a missing permission check on the preview endpoints, a user with access to the Wagtail admin and knowledge of a model's fields can craft a form submission to obtain a preview rendering of any page, snippet or site setting object for which previews are enabled, consisting of any data of the user's choosing. The existing data of the object itself is not exposed, but depending on the nature of the template being rendered, this may expose other database contents that would otherwise only be accessible to users with edit access over the model. The vulnerability is not exploitable by an ordinary site visitor without access to the Wagtail admin.

### Patches
Patched versions have been released as Wagtail 6.3.6, 7.0.4, 7.1.3 and 7.2.2. The new 7.3 feature release also incorporates this fix.

### Workarounds
No workaround is available.

### Acknowledgements

Many thanks to @thxtech for reporting this issue.

### For more information

If there are any questions or comments about this advisory:

- Visit Wagtail's [support channels](https://docs.wagtail.io/en/stable/support.html)
- Send an email to [security@wagtail.org](mailto:security@wagtail.org) (view our [security policy](https://github.com/wagtail/wagtail/security/policy) for more information).
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-4qvv-g3vr-m348
Package: wagtail (PIP)
Severity: MODERATE (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-862: Missing Authorization
Vulnerable versions: >= 7.1rc1, <= 7.1.2
Patched in: 7.1.3

Summary: Wagtail has improper permission handling on admin preview endpoints

Details:
### Impact
Due to a missing permission check on the preview endpoints, a user with access to the Wagtail admin and knowledge of a model's fields can craft a form submission to obtain a preview rendering of any page, snippet or site setting object for which previews are enabled, consisting of any data of the user's choosing. The existing data of the object itself is not exposed, but depending on the nature of the template being rendered, this may expose other database contents that would otherwise only be accessible to users with edit access over the model. The vulnerability is not exploitable by an ordinary site visitor without access to the Wagtail admin.

### Patches
Patched versions have been released as Wagtail 6.3.6, 7.0.4, 7.1.3 and 7.2.2. The new 7.3 feature release also incorporates this fix.

### Workarounds
No workaround is available.

### Acknowledgements

Many thanks to @thxtech for reporting this issue.

### For more information

If there are any questions or comments about this advisory:

- Visit Wagtail's [support channels](https://docs.wagtail.io/en/stable/support.html)
- Send an email to [security@wagtail.org](mailto:security@wagtail.org) (view our [security policy](https://github.com/wagtail/wagtail/security/policy) for more information).
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-4qvv-g3vr-m348
Package: wagtail (PIP)
Severity: MODERATE (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-862: Missing Authorization
Vulnerable versions: >= 6.4rc1, <= 7.0.3
Patched in: 7.0.4

Summary: Wagtail has improper permission handling on admin preview endpoints

Details:
### Impact
Due to a missing permission check on the preview endpoints, a user with access to the Wagtail admin and knowledge of a model's fields can craft a form submission to obtain a preview rendering of any page, snippet or site setting object for which previews are enabled, consisting of any data of the user's choosing. The existing data of the object itself is not exposed, but depending on the nature of the template being rendered, this may expose other database contents that would otherwise only be accessible to users with edit access over the model. The vulnerability is not exploitable by an ordinary site visitor without access to the Wagtail admin.

### Patches
Patched versions have been released as Wagtail 6.3.6, 7.0.4, 7.1.3 and 7.2.2. The new 7.3 feature release also incorporates this fix.

### Workarounds
No workaround is available.

### Acknowledgements

Many thanks to @thxtech for reporting this issue.

### For more information

If there are any questions or comments about this advisory:

- Visit Wagtail's [support channels](https://docs.wagtail.io/en/stable/support.html)
- Send an email to [security@wagtail.org](mailto:security@wagtail.org) (view our [security policy](https://github.com/wagtail/wagtail/security/policy) for more information).
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-4qvv-g3vr-m348
Package: wagtail (PIP)
Severity: MODERATE (CVSS 0.0)
CWE: CWE-862: Missing Authorization
Vulnerable versions: < 6.3.6
Patched in: 6.3.6

Summary: Wagtail has improper permission handling on admin preview endpoints

Details:
### Impact
Due to a missing permission check on the preview endpoints, a user with access to the Wagtail admin and knowledge of a model's fields can craft a form submission to obtain a preview rendering of any page, snippet or site setting object for which previews are enabled, consisting of any data of the user's choosing. The existing data of the object itself is not exposed, but depending on the nature of the template being rendered, this may expose other database contents that would otherwise only be accessible to users with edit access over the model. The vulnerability is not exploitable by an ordinary site visitor without access to the Wagtail admin.

### Patches
Patched versions have been released as Wagtail 6.3.6, 7.0.4, 7.1.3 and 7.2.2. The new 7.3 feature release also incorporates this fix.

### Workarounds
No workaround is available.

### Acknowledgements

Many thanks to @thxtech for reporting this issue.

### For more information

If there are any questions or comments about this advisory:

- Visit Wagtail's [support channels](https://docs.wagtail.io/en/stable/support.html)
- Send an email to [security@wagtail.org](mailto:security@wagtail.org) (view our [security policy](https://github.com/wagtail/wagtail/security/policy) for more information).
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-gm8q-m8mv-jj5m
Package: unstructured (PIP)
Severity: CRITICAL (CVSS 9.8)
CWE: CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal'), CWE-73: External Control of File Name or Path
Vulnerable versions: <= 0.18.17
Patched in: 0.18.18

Summary: Unstructured has Path Traversal via Malicious MSG Attachment that Allows Arbitrary File Write

Details:
A Path Traversal vulnerability in the `partition_msg` function allows an attacker to write or overwrite arbitrary files on the filesystem when processing malicious MSG files with attachments.

  ## Impact
  An attacker can craft a malicious .msg file with attachment filenames containing path traversal sequences (e.g.,
  `../../../etc/cron.d/malicious`). When processed with `process_attachments=True`, the library writes the attachment to an
  attacker-controlled path, potentially leading to:

  - Arbitrary file overwrite
  - Remote code execution (via overwriting configuration files, cron jobs, or Python packages)
  - Data corruption
  - Denial of service

  ## Affected Functionality
  The vulnerability affects the MSG file partitioning functionality when `process_attachments=True` is enabled.

  ## Vulnerability Details
  The library does not sanitize attachment filenames in MSG files before using them in file write operations, allowing directory
  traversal sequences to escape the intended output directory.

  ## Workarounds
  Until patched, users can:
  - Set `process_attachments=False` when processing untrusted MSG files
  - Avoid processing MSG files from untrusted sources
  - Implement additional filename validation before processing
GitHub Security Advisory: GHSA-rjrp-m2jw-pv9c
Package: sagemaker (PIP)
Severity: HIGH (CVSS 7.2)
CWE: CWE-201: Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data, CWE-295: Improper Certificate Validation, CWE-319: Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information
Vulnerable versions: < 2.256.0
Patched in: 2.256.0

Summary: SageMaker Python SDK has Exposed HMAC

Details:
### Summary

SageMaker Python SDK is an open source library for training and deploying machine learning models on Amazon SageMaker. An issue where the HMAC secret key is stored in environment variables and disclosed via the DescribeTrainingJob API has been identified.

### Impact

- Function and Payload Tampering: Attackers with DescribeTrainingJob permissions may extract HMAC secret keys and forge serialized function payloads stored in S3. These tampered payloads would be processed and executed without triggering integrity validation errors, enabling unintended code substitution.
- Arbitrary Code Execution in the Training Environment: An third party with both DescribeTrainingJob permissions and write access to the job's S3 output location can extract the HMAC key, craft inappropriate Python objects, and achieve remote code execution in the client's Python process when the victim retrieves remote function results.
- Data and Credentials Handling: Arbitrary remote code execution may interact with sensitive data, model artifacts, environment variables, and potentially AWS metadata.
- Cross-Tenant or Shared Environment Risks: In multi-tenant, shared S3 bucket, a disclosed HMAC key could act as a pivot point to perform inappropriate actions against other users' remote function workloads. This could leverage the IAM permissions, shared S3 buckets, or VPC resources to compromise adjacent services or data.

### Impacted versions

- SageMaker Python SDK v3 < v3.2.0
- SageMaker Python SDK v2 < v2.256.0

### Patches
This issue has been addressed in SageMaker Python SDK version [v3.2.0](https://github.com/aws/sagemaker-python-sdk/tree/22d30f577a6139431a1fb9154b7b88a0e2a1ace6) and [v2.256.0](https://github.com/aws/sagemaker-python-sdk/tree/a140cfcd12abfee10254cb4dea3bb10758e4321c). Upgrading to the latest version immediately and ensuring any forked or derivative code is patched to incorporate the new fixes is recommended.

### Workarounds
Customers using self-signed certificates for internal model downloads should add their private Certificate Authority (CA) certificate to the container image rather than relying on the SDK’s previous insecure configuration. This opt-in approach maintains security while accommodating internal trusted domains.

### Resources
If there are any questions or comments about this advisory, contact AWS Security via the [vulnerability reporting page](https://aws.amazon.com/security/vulnerability-reporting) or directly via email to [aws-security@amazon.com](mailto:aws-security@amazon.com). Please do not create a public GitHub issue.