Answer in brief
CVE-2026-15920 records a Medium severity (CVSS 6.1) vulnerability in Potential cross-site scripting via URLField values in the admin. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps djangoproject/Django (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
Analysis pending evidence review
HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.
Answer in brief
CVE-2026-15920 records a Medium severity (CVSS 6.1) vulnerability in Potential cross-site scripting via URLField values in the admin. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps djangoproject/Django (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
Analysis pending evidence review
HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.
CVSS is 6.1. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.
Analysis status
Analysis pending evidence review
Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.
The current feed maps djangoproject/Django (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
| Package | Affected range | Fixed version |
|---|---|---|
| djangoproject/Djangogeneric | >=6.0 <6.0.8 || >=5.2 <5.2.17 | 6.0.8, 5.2.17 |
Published upstream
Aug 4, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordSource modified
Aug 4, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordFirst seen by HOL
Aug 4, 2026
An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.17 and 6.0 before 6.0.8. `django.contrib.admin.utils.display_for_field()` renders `URLField` values as clickable links in the admin without validating the URL. A value stored with an unsafe scheme is displayed as a link on changelist and read-only admin pages, which allows cross-site scripting against staff users who click the link. Exploitation requires the unsafe value to already be stored in the database. `URLField` validation through a `ModelForm` or the admin rejects unsafe schemes, so this affects applications that persist `URLField` data without running model validation, for example through direct queryset writes, deserialization, or bulk import of untrusted input. Django would like to thank Egor Saltykov for reporting this issue.
Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.
CVSS is 6.1. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.
Analysis status
Analysis pending evidence review
Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.
The current feed maps djangoproject/Django (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
| Package | Affected range | Fixed version |
|---|---|---|
| djangoproject/Djangogeneric | >=6.0 <6.0.8 || >=5.2 <5.2.17 | 6.0.8, 5.2.17 |
Published upstream
Aug 4, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordSource modified
Aug 4, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordFirst seen by HOL
Aug 4, 2026
An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.17 and 6.0 before 6.0.8. `django.contrib.admin.utils.display_for_field()` renders `URLField` values as clickable links in the admin without validating the URL. A value stored with an unsafe scheme is displayed as a link on changelist and read-only admin pages, which allows cross-site scripting against staff users who click the link. Exploitation requires the unsafe value to already be stored in the database. `URLField` validation through a `ModelForm` or the admin rejects unsafe schemes, so this affects applications that persist `URLField` data without running model validation, for example through direct queryset writes, deserialization, or bulk import of untrusted input. Django would like to thank Egor Saltykov for reporting this issue.
Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.