Skip to main content

Django-Vue-Lyadmin EUVDEUVD-2026-92777

| CVE-2026-105392 MEDIUM
Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key (CWE-321)
2026-10-05 VulDB GHSA-5gfh-7q6r-6q5p
5.5
CVSS 4.0 · Vendor: VulDB
View

Attack ChainAIDerived

Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain

  1. Access
    Identify target running Django-Vue-Lyadmin ≤3.2.12
  2. Delivery
    Retrieve hard-coded default SECRET_KEY from public source
  3. Exploit
    Forge and sign admin JWT token
  4. Execution
    Submit forged token to application
  5. Persist
    Authenticate as privileged user
  6. Impact
    Access or modify backend data

Vulnerability Assessment

Weakness
CWE
OWASP Top 10:2025
A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures
ASVS 5.0
V11 - Cryptography Key management, no hard-coded keys
Exploitation Conditions

Exploitation requires that the deployed instance still uses the shipped default/hard-coded SECRET_KEY in backend/application/settings.py, which is used for JWT signing; once the default key is known (it is public in the source and documentation), a remote unauthenticated attacker can forge valid JWTs. The decisive limiting factor is operator configuration: the maintainer documents that developers must manually change the SECRET_KEY before deployment, so any instance that rotated the key to a secret value is NOT vulnerable. There is no user-interaction requirement and no authentication needed against an unremediated instance, but the vulnerability is effectively a default-credential/weak-default problem - real-world exploitability depends entirely on deployments that neglected the documented key-rotation step. Affected scope is Lybbn Django-Vue-Lyadmin up to and including version 3.2.12.

Impact

This is a real but context-dependent issue rather than a widespread emergency. The input CVSS 4.0 vector (AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N) describes network-reachable, unauthenticated, low-complexity exploitation, and CWE-321 (use of hard-coded cryptographic key) in a JWT signing context means an attacker who knows the shipped default SECRET_KEY can forge valid JWTs and authenticate as arbitrary users, including admins. Exploit signals are mixed and mostly low-intensity: a public POC exists (GitHub issue #3), but the CVE is NOT in CISA KEV, no EPSS score was provided in the input, and SSVC/automatable data was not supplied - so there is no evidence of active or automated exploitation, only disclosed proof-of-concept. The input CVSS 4.0 rates impact as Low across VC/VI/VA (score 5.5), which under-represents the true consequence of JWT forgery (full authentication bypass); this is a conflict worth noting - the base score looks moderate, but the realistic impact on a vulnerable instance is account/admin takeover. Critically, the maintainer states the default key is documented and operators are instructed to change it before deployment, so the actual risk is gated almost entirely by whether a given deployment left the shipped key unchanged; this is a deployment-hygiene flaw, not a universally exploitable defect. All exploitation signals derive from a single reporter (VulDB); no independent vendor advisory or patch was provided.

Exploit ScenarioDerived

An attacker obtains the hard-coded default SECRET_KEY from the project's public source or documentation, then crafts and signs a forged JWT (e.g., for an administrator account) and submits it to a deployed Django-Vue-Lyadmin instance that still uses the default key. The server validates the forged token as authentic, granting the attacker authenticated access without credentials. A public proof-of-concept for this issue has been disclosed (GitHub issue #3).

This Month Plan within 30 days. Why: MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9).
No patch listed yet 0.3% exploitation probability (EPSS)

Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.

Alert me

AnalysisAIv1 – Oct 05, 2026

Hard-coded JWT signing key in Lybbn Django-Vue-Lyadmin through version 3.2.12 allows remote attackers who know the publicly documented default SECRET_KEY in backend/application/settings.py to forge valid JSON Web Tokens, impersonating arbitrary users and bypassing authentication (CWE-321). Publicly available exploit code exists, but exposure is context-dependent: the maintainer states the key is documented and must be changed manually before deployment, so any instance that rotated SECRET_KEY to a private value is not affected. Our independent assessment rates this CVSS 3.1 9.1 (network-reachable, no authentication or user interaction required against an unremediated instance) versus the CVSS 4.0 5.5 recorded by VulDB, but the decisive limiting factor is operator configuration rather than attacker capability.

RemediationAI

The primary fix is configuration, not a code upgrade: generate a new SECRET_KEY with Django's get_random_secret_key() (or an equivalent 50+ character random value), replace the shipped default in backend/application/settings.py, and keep it out of version control by loading it from an environment variable or secrets manager; no vendor-released patch version is identified in the available data, and the maintainer's published position is that the value is documented and must be rotated by the operator. Note the side effect that rotating SECRET_KEY immediately invalidates all previously issued JWTs and Django sessions, forcing a re-login for every active user, so schedule the change in a maintenance window. Because the default key has been public for the life of the project, assume any unremediated instance may already have forged tokens in circulation; audit authentication logs for token use from unexpected accounts or IP ranges and consider reissuing credentials for privileged accounts. While rotation is pending, compensating controls include blocking external access to the API and admin endpoints (for example restricting to a trusted proxy or VPN, which breaks public API availability), shortening JWT lifetimes and enforcing strict audience/issuer validation, and searching deployed codebases and container images for the literal upstream key value so exposed instances can be identified. Consult https://vuldb.com/vuln/413586 and https://github.com/lybbn/django-vue-lyadmin/issues/3 for the reported details before relying on any single mitigation.

Affected VersionsENISA

Django-Vue-Lyadmin 3.2.10
Django-Vue-Lyadmin 3.2.4
Django-Vue-Lyadmin 3.2.7
Django-Vue-Lyadmin 3.2.8
Django-Vue-Lyadmin 3.2.12
Django-Vue-Lyadmin 3.2.6
Django-Vue-Lyadmin 3.2.1
Django-Vue-Lyadmin 3.2.11
Django-Vue-Lyadmin 3.2.2
Django-Vue-Lyadmin 3.2.3
Django-Vue-Lyadmin 3.2.9
Django-Vue-Lyadmin 3.2.5
Django-Vue-Lyadmin 3.2.0

Affected Packages

euvd django_vue_lyadmin no fix

Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)

Affects your stack

Affects 1 package in euvd

Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.

Technical ContextAI · show details

Django applications require a SECRET_KEY in settings.py that is used for cryptographic signing - session cookies, password reset tokens, and in this project the signing secret behind JSON Web Tokens issued to API clients. Django-Vue-Lyadmin (CPE cpe:2.3:a:lybbn:django-vue-lyadmin:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) ships a static value in backend/application/settings.py that is visible in the public upstream repository and referenced in the project documentation, which places it squarely in CWE-321 (Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key). Because the key is not secret, an attacker who knows it can independently compute a valid HMAC signature and mint arbitrary JWTs - choosing any user identifier or claim set - which the backend will accept as authentic. This maps to high confidentiality and integrity impact (forged tokens grant access to data and the ability to act as other users) with no availability component, and it is effectively a weak-default-credential problem rather than a software memory-safety or injection flaw: the code path itself is functioning as designed, and the vulnerability exists only where the documented post-deployment key rotation was skipped.

Know when Django gets its next vulnerability

  • Watch products and get an email when something new is published
  • Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
  • Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources

No credit card · 7-day full trial

Severity by source

Vendor (VulDB) PRIMARY 5.5 MEDIUM
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P
vuln.today AI 9.1 CRITICAL

Knowing the public default key lets a remote unauthenticated attacker forge admin JWTs (PR:N, AC:L), yielding full auth bypass with high confidentiality and integrity impact but no availability effect.

3.1 AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
4.0 AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Primary rating from Vendor (VulDB).

CVSS VectorVendor: VulDB

Attack Vector
Network
Attack Complexity
Low
Attack Requirements
None
Privileges Required
None
User Interaction
None
Vulnerable system: Confidentiality
Low
Vulnerable system: Integrity
Low
Vulnerable system: Availability
Low
Subsequent system: Confidentiality
None
Subsequent system: Integrity
None
Subsequent system: Availability
None

Lifecycle Timeline

2
CVSS changed
Oct 05, 2026 - 20:22 NVD
6.9 (MEDIUM) 5.5 (MEDIUM)
CVE Published
Oct 05, 2026 - 19:45 cve.org
MEDIUM 5.5

DescriptionCVE.org

A vulnerability has been found in Lybbn Django-Vue-Lyadmin up to 3.2.12. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file backend/application/settings.py of the component JWT Signing. The manipulation of the argument SECRET_KEY leads to use of hard-coded cryptographic key . Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project maintainer explains: "The issue with this key is described in the documentation. Developers need to manually change their keys before deployment."

Threat Intelligence Overview

EPSS Score
0.3%
Top 80% exploitable
Prevalence
Low
niche open-source Django admin scaffold, limited enterprise deployment footprint
Exploit
POC
Public exploit code exists
Data Quality
6 sources
Confidence: High
EUVD NVD CVE.org EPSS Vulnrichment GitHub VulDB

How this decision was reached

The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.

SignalValue
Severity MEDIUM
CISA KEV No
Public POC Yes
EPSS 0.3%
Patch available No
Active threat No
Deciding rule
MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9)
What every action level means
Emergency Immediate action required. Criteria: CRITICAL + in CISA KEV (actively exploited) without patch, OR CRITICAL + EPSS > 30% without patch, OR CRITICAL + active threat signals without patch.
Act Now Prioritize within 24-48h. Criteria: in KEV with patch available, OR CRITICAL + public POC, OR HIGH + EPSS > 10%, OR CRITICAL + active threat, OR any CRITICAL severity.
This Week Schedule remediation this week. Criteria: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9). Patch within normal change window.
This Month Plan within 30 days. Criteria: MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9), lower exploitation probability. Include in regular patch cycle.
Monitor Track and reassess. Criteria: LOW severity (CVSS 0.1-3.9), minimal exploitation risk. No immediate action needed.

SSVC AssessmentENISA

SSVC Decision· derived
Scheduled
Exploitation
Poc
System Exposure· derived
Open
Automatable
Yes
Human Impact· derived
Medium
Technical Impact
Partial

Priority Score

48
Low Medium High Critical
KEV: 0
EPSS: 0
CVSS: +28
PoC: +20
Weaponized: 0
Threat intel: 0
Gov advisory: 0

Attack Technique

Information disclosure occurs when an application unintentionally exposes sensitive data that aids attackers in reconnaissance or directly compromises security.

More in Django

View all
CVE-2021-23336 MEDIUM POC
5.9 Feb 15

The package python/cpython from 0 and before 3.6.13, from 3.7.0 and before 3.7.10, from 3.8.0 and before 3.8.8, from 3.9

CVE-2017-12794 MEDIUM POC
6.1 Sep 07

In Django 1.10.x before 1.10.8 and 1.11.x before 1.11.5, HTML autoescaping was disabled in a portion of the template for

CVE-2022-34265 CRITICAL POC
9.8 Jul 04

An issue was discovered in Django 3.2 before 3.2.14 and 4.0 before 4.0.6. Rated critical severity (CVSS 9.8), this vulne

CVE-2021-35042 CRITICAL POC
9.8 Jul 02

Django 3.1.x before 3.1.13 and 3.2.x before 3.2.5 allows QuerySet.order_by SQL injection if order_by is untrusted input

CVE-2019-19844 CRITICAL POC
9.8 Dec 18

Django before 1.11.27, 2.x before 2.2.9, and 3.x before 3.0.1 allows account takeover. Rated critical severity (CVSS 9.8

CVE-2026-61594 CRITICAL POC
9.1 Sep 16

An authentication/authorization bypass in the djust Python live-view framework (versions prior to 1.0.7) lets unauthenti

CVE-2026-61599 HIGH POC
8.8 Sep 16

Unauthenticated arbitrary Python module import in djust before 1.0.7 lets any client that can reach the WebSocket or SSE

CVE-2020-9402 HIGH POC
8.8 Mar 05

Django 1.11 before 1.11.29, 2.2 before 2.2.11, and 3.0 before 3.0.4 allows SQL Injection if untrusted data is used as a

CVE-2016-6186 MEDIUM POC
6.1 Aug 05

Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the dismissChangeRelatedObjectPopup function in contrib/admin/static/admin/j

CVE-2026-93456 HIGH POC
8.4 Sep 18

Forged content modification in django-page-cms through 2.0.13 lets unauthenticated remote attackers exploit five CSRF-ex

CVE-2026-61593 HIGH POC
8.1 Sep 16

Cross-site request forgery in djust's Server-Sent-Events transport affects all versions prior to 1.0.7 and allows a cros

CVE-2026-61590 HIGH POC
7.4 Sep 16

Unauthenticated remote attackers can read live Django view and session state and invoke server-side handlers through dju

This site uses cookies essential for authentication and security. No tracking or analytics cookies are used. Privacy Policy