CVE-2026-113593
An issue was discovered in Django 6.1 before 6.1.3, 6.0 before 6.0.10, and 5.2 before 5.2.19. The `django.middleware.cache.UpdateCacheMiddle
CVSS
3.1
Bajo
EPSS
—
KEV
—
Exploit Today
—
0-100
Publicado: 3 nov 2026 · Última mod.: 3 nov 2026 · CWE-524
Sin historial EPSS suficiente todavía.
An issue was discovered in Django 6.1 before 6.1.3, 6.0 before 6.0.10, and 5.2 before 5.2.19. The `django.middleware.cache.UpdateCacheMiddleware` and the `django.views.decorators.cache.cache_page()` decorator generate identical cache keys for requests that omit a header listed in the response’s `Vary` header and requests that include that header with an empty value, potentially allowing remote attackers to access private data cached for another request. Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.1.x, 5.0.x, and 4.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected. Django would like to thank Andrew Gonzalez for reporting this issue.
- docs.djangoproject.comhttps://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/releases/security/
- github.comhttps://github.com/django/django/commit/2006a2b068766bf332f1afcc32b7614d8e5759a2
- github.comhttps://github.com/django/django/commit/55e2e009b4f3996e5c55af7b22a8c41eb826e892
- github.comhttps://github.com/django/django/commit/9007fecd3633cfd90b093ebe106af564347c8aee
- github.comhttps://github.com/django/django/commit/c0b7e5e4e4546e8ddc58262f1945938bb9d9ac2d
- groups.google.comhttps://groups.google.com/g/django-announce
- www.djangoproject.comhttps://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2026/nov/03/security-releases/
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExplotTítuloVis.
CVE-2026-1157104.2 MED—
———Use of Cache Containing Sensitive Information (CWE-524) in Elasticsearch can lead to information disclosure and incorrect search results via specially crafted search requests. For some query types, Elasticsearch can share cached query results between users who have field-level security restrictions and users who do not. A user restricted by field-level security can learn which documents match a value in a field that they cannot read. A restricted user can also cause users with full access to receive incomplete search results. Disclosure is only possible when a user with full access ran the same query on the same shard recently.3hCVE-2026-1184897.5 ALT—
———In Eclipse Vert.x versions [4.0.0,4.5.35] or [5.0.0,5.2.2], when one `CachingWebClient` is shared across users — the documented pattern of a per-user `WebClientSession` over a shared caching client — a response that is specific to one user but is cacheable and not marked `private`/`no-store` is stored in the client-level shared cache tier and served to other users requesting the same URL. A later user's session, or an anonymous caller through the same client, can receive an earlier user's response. Depending on the response this discloses authenticated content or a session cookie, the latter enabling session fixation or hijacking.4hCVE-2026-1114645.9 MED—
——0The WP Fastest Cache plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Sensitive Information Exposure in all versions up to, and including, 1.5.3. The plugin caches the response of Core’s wp-activate.php without honoring its no-store/no-cache headers, the wp-activate-* cookie, or the WP_INSTALLING state, writing the credential-bearing activation response to a publicly accessible cache file. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to retrieve the plaintext username and twelve-character password of the most recently activated Multisite registrant from that cached wp-activate.php response. Exploitation requires a Multisite subdirectory installation with public user and site registration enabled, and the credentials are only exposed after a genuine registrant follows their activation link.6hCVE-2026-1092175.3 MED17.2%
——5The PDF Invoices & Packing Slips for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Sensitive Information Exposure in all versions up to, and including, 5.16.5 via the 'invoice_number (via document filename)' parameter. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to extract another customer's complete invoice PDF — including billing identity, shipping address, private order notes, line items, prices, dates, order ID, and invoice number — delivered directly to the attacker's email as an order confirmation attachment. Exploitation requires the plugin's yearly invoice number reset option to be enabled, and the attacker's guest-checkout order must trigger a processing email within 60 seconds of a victim order that shares the same yearly-reset invoice number.1dCVE-2026-943864.8 MED28.0%
——8Use of Cache Containing Sensitive Information vulnerability in Apache Camel Oauth component.
This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.19.0 before 4.22.2.
OAuthClientCredentialsTokenResolver obtains OAuth 2.0 bearer tokens through the client credentials grant on behalf of the components that authenticate their outbound calls with a named OAuth profile, such as camel-openai, camel-langchain4j-agent, camel-huggingface, camel-docling, camel-a2a, camel-spring-ai-chat and the IBM watsonx components, and of applications that call the OAuthClientAuthenticationFactory SPI directly. It kept the tokens it obtained in a static cache shared by every resolver instance and every CamelContext in the JVM, and keyed that cache on the token endpoint and the client ID only, although the token request also carries the client secret and the requested scope. Two profiles that share a token endpoint and a client ID but request different scopes, or authenticate with different client secrets, therefore mapped to the same cache entry: the profile that resolved a token first populated the entry, and the other profile was then handed that token, with no token request made under its own configuration, for as long as the token remained valid. Token caching is enabled by default, and pointing several profiles at one identity provider client is an ordinary use of the profile support rather than an opt-in to an insecure setting. The outcome is an outbound request that carries a token issued for another profile's scope, which can grant broader authority than the calling profile was configured for, or reach a service the token was not issued for; with identity providers that derive a token's audience from the requested scope, a different scope can mean a token for a different service altogether. A profile configured with a different client secret was likewise served the token obtained with the other secret, without authenticating with its own. The profiles are configured by the deployment, which is trusted, so no untrusted input reaches the cache: the party that gains is the service that receives a token it was not meant to receive, which, if hostile or compromised, can replay that token within its scope. Reaching the issue requires a deployment that defines more than one profile sharing a token endpoint and client ID while differing in scope or client secret.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.23.0, which fixes the issue. If users are on the 4.22.x releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.22.2. The 4.19.x to 4.21.x release lines reached end of life before this issue was resolved and will not receive a fix, so deployments on them must move to a supported release. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, disable token caching on every OAuth profile that shares a token endpoint and client ID with another profile, by setting camel.oauth.NAME.cache-tokens=false for a named profile or camel.oauth.cache-tokens=false for the default one, so that each resolution requests a token with that profile’s own scope and client secret, at the cost of a token request on every resolution. Alternatively, register a separate client at the identity provider for each profile that needs a different scope or client secret, so that no two such profiles share a client ID.8dCVE-2026-1057113.5 BAJ12.2%
——4GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 15.0 before 19.3.6, 19.4 before 19.4.3, and 19.5 before 19.5.1 that, when a merge request in a public project referenced a confidential issue from a private project, an authenticated user with no project membership could have read the confidential issue's title, due to a viewer-independent fragment cache key that incorrectly shared per-user-redacted rendered content across all users.4d