DJUST · CVE-2026-125112 · Package
FIX → 1.1.2 +1
djust carries a 'safe' mark from a context variable into any template binding that reuses the same name, so untrusted input rebound under that name is rendered unescaped. An attacker who controls the bound value can inject HTML or script, giving cross-site scripting in the page.
first public Sep 17, 2026 · 1 source
Could this affect your app?
Free first check from your website. Connect your repo for the full answer.
Applications that use djust and combine mark_safe (or any grant of safe status to a context key) with a template that later rebinds the same name through {% with %}, {% for %}, {% include ... with %} or an assign tag. No unusual template filter or |safe is needed to trigger it. Projects on Django templates alone, or djust projects that never mark values safe or never rebind those names, are not exposed.
Not affected if default-config, no-mark-safe, no-name-rebinding
Who cares django, djust, python, saas, self-hosted
pip show djust or check the installed djust version in your lockfile.A context safety grant was inherited by a template binding that never earned it, so rebinding a name the view had marked safe left the mark attached to the new, attacker-controlled value.
djust's context safety channel is keyed by name, not by value. Every bind copied the value and left the grant in place:
view marks p = mark_safe('<b>trusted</b>')
template {% with p=user_input %}{{ p }}{% endwith %}
djust '<img src=x onerror=alert(1)>' <- executes
django '<img src=x onerror=alert(1)>'
Eight distinct shapes were live. All are fixed in 1.1.2:
| shape | example |
|---|---|
{% with %} rebinding a marked name | {% with p=hostile %}{{ p }}{% endwith %} |
Check it with your coding agent
It reads this page and tells you if your code is affected.
Are you affected?
Ask from here. InfraStack checks the affected versions against your stack and answers in your inbox.
InfraStack checks the affected versions against your stack and answers in Slack, with the evidence and the fix.
{% with, {% for, {% include ... with and assign tags reusing a name that the view passes through mark_safe.djust below 1.0.10, or 1.1.0 up to but not including 1.1.2.Upgrade to 1.1.2 +1
djust 1.0.10 for the 1.0.x linedjust 1.1.2 for the 1.1.x line{% with %} descendant of a rebound name | {% with p=hostile %}{{ p.a }}{% endwith %} |
{% with %} binding over a marked name | {% with q=hostile %}{{ q }}{% endwith %} |
{% for %} loop variable | {% for p in hostiles %}{{ p }}{% endfor %} |
{% for %} descendant | {% for p in hostiles %}{{ p.a }}{% endfor %} |
{% for %} tuple unpacking | {% for k, v in rows %}{{ v }}{% endfor %} |
{% include … with %} | {% include "c.html" with q=hostile %} |
| assign tags | {% … as x %} |
No filter chain and no |safe anywhere in the template is required. The precondition is that the application marked some value safe under a name that a template later rebinds — an ordinary pattern, since a view commonly marks trusted markup safe and templates commonly reuse short names such as p, item or row.
Stored or reflected XSS in any djust application that combines mark_safe (or any framework path that grants a context key safety) with a template that rebinds that name. Exploitation requires no unusual template construct.
Fixed in 1.1.2, and in 1.2.0 (main).
The rule is that a bind replaces the grant rather than inheriting one. It is stated that way deliberately: the originally reported defects pointed the opposite direction — a grant being lost across some binds, causing over-escaping — and fixing only the reported direction would have left this leak in place. Both directions are the same rule.
Not fixed in 1.1.2, and tracked for 1.2.0: two over-escaping cases where a grant fails to travel with a value that legitimately carries one ({% with body=post.text|linebreaks %}, and mark_safe reaching a template through dict.values / dict.items). Both escape more than Django rather than less, so neither is a leak.
Before upgrading, avoid reusing a context name for both mark_safe'd content and untrusted input, and avoid rebinding such a name in {% with %}, {% for %}, {% include … with %} or an assign tag.
Found while preparing the 1.1.1 security release: the reproducer published in GHSA-9395-2g46-rj3f was run against the built 1.1.1 artifact before that advisory was published, and proved the class was still live. Publishing the original text would have reported this class as patched when it was not.
GitHub Advisory Database, CC-BY 4.0. Posts quoted belong to their authors.