Home/CVE/An issue was discovered in Django 6.0 before 6.0.7 and 5.2 before 5.2.16.
`django.contrib.gis.gdal.GDALRaster` over-read
CVE
CVE-2026-53877
An issue was discovered in Django 6.0 before 6.0.7 and 5.2 before 5.2.16.
`django.contrib.gis.gdal.GDALRaster` over-read
An issue was discovered in Django 6.0 before 6.0.7 and 5.2 before 5.2.16. django.contrib.gis.gdal.GDALRaster over-reads its in-memory buffer when constructed from a bytes object, which can disclose adjacent memory or cause service degradation via a potential segmentation fault when the vsi_buffer property is accessed. 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 Bence Nagy for reporting this issue.
MEDIUM · CVSS 4.8
EPSS 0.00291
EPSS exploitation odds0.29% · top 79%
Monitor
- No active-exploitation, high-EPSS, or public-exploit signals - routine patching cadence
No Sigma yet — build one →
YARA rules0
Look this up elsewhere - one-click external pivots
▸
How to read a CVE - triage first, then detect and patch
This page is every public fact about CVE-2026-53877, cross-linked. Its job is to answer one question fast - does this need my attention now? - and then hand you the two things you do about it. Here is how an analyst reads it.
Triage: should I act now? Four signals, and they are not interchangeable:
CVSSseverity - how bad it is IF exploited, 0-10. A high CVSS alone is not urgency; a flaw can be a perfect 10 and never actually be attacked.
EPSSprobability - a model’s estimate of the chance it is exploited in the next 30 days, 0-1. This is the “will it actually happen” signal.
CISA KEVconfirmed - it is being exploited in the wild right now. The strongest signal on the page; KEV beats any score.
Weaponisedavailability - public exploits / PoCs, and especially Metasploit modules rated Excellent / Great. Reliable, packaged exploit code means low-skill attackers can use it today.
How they combine: KEV, or a dependable Metasploit module, means patch now regardless of CVSS. High CVSS + low EPSS + no exploit is real but not an emergency - schedule it. Low CVSS but KEV-listed still gets patched now. The verdict above already weighed these for you; this is how it got there.
Then what - two workflows:
Detectwhen you cannot patch today, follow this CVE to the ATT&CK techniques it enables, then Build a SIEM detection (the green button) - author a rule, test it in Atomic, deploy it. That buys visibility while the patch waits.
PatchAffected products / packages tell you if you are exposed; Fixed versions by distribution and Vendor advisories give the exact version that closes it.
Reading order for the panels below: verdict + badges, then Public exploits / Metasploit (is it weaponised), then ATT&CK techniques + Sigma / IDS rules (can I detect it), then Affected products / packages + Fixed versions (am I exposed, what patches it), then Threat actors / IOCs (who uses it), then Scoring & timeline / references (the evidence).
↗
Exploitation momentum
2 days of EPSSstable
Exploitation pressure is steady. This reads the direction and speed of EPSS over time, which can move before EPSS itself peaks or before CISA lists it.
CVSS base score
4.8
MEDIUMCVSS v3.1 · 6a34fbeb-21d4-45e7-8e0a-62b95bc12c92
EPSS exploitation probability
0.29%
Top 79%odds of exploitation in the next 30 days
CVSS metric silhouette
shape grows toward worst-case
SSVC triage · cisa-vulnrichment
Exploitation
none
Automatable
no
Tech impact
partial
CVSS vector breakdown
Exploitability - how they get in
Attack Vector
Network
Adjacent
Local
Physical
Attack Complexity
Low
High
Privileges Required
None
Low
High
User Interaction
None
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Changed
Impact - what breaks
Confidentiality
None
Low
High
Integrity
None
Low
High
Availability
None
Low
High
VECTOR
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:LLifecycle
- 07 Jul 2026Published to NVD
- 08 Jul 2026Last modified
Every entry is a recorded date - NVD publish/modify, CISA KEV add, public exploit disclosure. No inferred events.
Attack path
Full kill chain
◆
ATT&CK techniques
1Techniques this CVE enables. Pills with a solid outline are high confidence - named directly in ATT&CK or Nuclei, or human-curated by CTID; the rest are inferred from the weakness type using MITRE's CVE Mapping Methodology and the CWE → CAPEC chain. Broad, generic-weakness guesses are filtered out. A small N× marks a technique that N independent sources agree on.
▤ Build a SIEM detection for these techniques▤
CAPEC attack patterns
2Attack patterns this CVE enables - the bridge from weakness to ATT&CK technique.
⬡
Weakness Classification
▤
Related CVEs
4CVEs linked to this one by a shared weakness (CWE) or affected product - joins on data already in the engine, with the reason shown per row.
CVE-2019-19339
It was found that the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 kpatch update did not include t...
same CWE-805
MEDIUM
CVE-2020-16101
It is possible for an unauthenticated remote DCOM websocket connection to crash ...
same CWE-805
HIGH
CVE-2020-14509
Multiple memory corruption vulnerabilities exist in CodeMeter (All versions prio...
same CWE-805
CRITICAL
CVE-2020-10774
A memory disclosure flaw was found in the Linux kernel's versions before 4.18.0-...
same CWE-805
MEDIUM
📦
Fixed versions by distribution
1The package version that resolves this CVE on each Linux distribution, from the vendor’s published security data. fixed in shows a patched version exists; open means the package is listed as affected with no fix yet.
alpine edgepy3-django fixed in 5.2.16-r0
🔗
References & Sources
3Source URLs (vendor pages, mailing lists, write-ups). Exploit/PoC links are in their own section above to avoid duplication.