LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CVE Record

CVE-2026-1207: Potential SQL injection via raster lookups on PostGIS

An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.2, 5.2 before 5.2.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.28. Raster lookups on ``RasterField`` (only implemented on PostGIS) allows remote attackers to inject SQL via the band index parameter. 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 Tarek Nakkouch for reporting this issue.

HighCVSS 8.3Not KEV-listedUpdated
Discuss exposureBack to CVEs
Glexia's TakeAutomated analysishigh

Security readout for executives and security teams

Plain-English summary

CVE-2026-1207 is a high-severity SQL injection issue in Django’s PostGIS raster lookup support. If an application exposes affected RasterField lookups to remote input, an attacker may influence database queries through the band index parameter, risking limited data exposure, modification, or service impact.

Executive priority

Treat this as urgent for geospatial Django services using PostGIS raster data. It is not necessarily broad across all Django applications, but exposed affected lookups create direct database risk. Patch supported branches promptly and identify unsupported deployments for migration.

Technical view

Django 6.0 before 6.0.2, 5.2 before 5.2.11, and 4.2 before 4.2.28 are affected. The flaw is CWE-89 in RasterField raster lookups, implemented only on PostGIS. The CVSS 3.1 vector is AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L, score 8.3.

Likely exposure

Exposure is likely limited to Django applications using GIS RasterField with PostGIS and code paths where raster lookup band index values can be influenced by users or external requests. Unsupported Django branches were not evaluated and may also be affected.

Exploitation context

The source bundle does not show KEV listing or confirmed active exploitation. The issue is remotely reachable, low-complexity, and requires no privileges or user interaction when vulnerable lookup paths are exposed.

Researcher notes

Focus triage on RasterField lookup usage and externally controlled band index values. Earlier unsupported Django branches, including examples named in the source, were not evaluated. Do not assume they are safe without vendor confirmation or code-level assessment.

Mitigation direction

  • Upgrade Django 6.0.x to 6.0.2 or later.
  • Upgrade Django 5.2.x to 5.2.11 or later.
  • Upgrade Django 4.2.x to 4.2.28 or later.
  • Review unsupported Django series and prioritize migration to supported releases.
  • Check Django and distribution vendor advisories for package-specific guidance.

Validation and detection

  • Inventory Django versions across applications and containers.
  • Identify applications using django.contrib.gis with PostGIS RasterField.
  • Review request paths that feed external values into raster lookups.
  • Confirm deployed packages include the fixed Django release.
  • Check Red Hat advisories if using vendor-packaged Django.
Prepared
Confidence
medium
Sources
7

Public sources used

Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.

Potential ATT&CK relevance

Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context

These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.

ATT&CK lookup starting points

Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.

cwe · medium confidence lookup

CWE-89: Database access and collection lookup

Injection into data stores can inform collection, data access, and exfiltration detection reviews. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
description · low confidence lookup

Database behavior lookup

The CVE wording references database injection or access, so collection and exfiltration review may help. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
cve · low confidence lookup

CVE-2026-1207 mapping review

Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.

Open ATT&CK lookup
Vulnerability profileCVE Program record
Severity
High
CVSS
8.3 (3.1)
Known Exploited
No
Published

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L

Official CVE source material

CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5

These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.

2CVSS vectors
8Timeline events
2ADP providers
16Source links

SSVC decision data

CISA-ADPCISA Coordinator
Timestamp
Version
2.0.3
Exploitation: noneAutomatable: noTechnical Impact: partial

CVSS vector scores

2 official scores

We collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.

ScoreVersionSeverityVectorExploitImpactSource
8.3CVSS 3.1HighCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L3.93.7redhat-SADP
5.4CVSS 3.1MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N2.82.5CISA-ADP

Vulnerability scoring details

Base CVSS 3.1 score

8.3High
CVSS 3.1 vector shape for CVE-2026-1207Attack VectorAttack ComplexityPrivileges RequiredUser InteractionScopeConfidentiality ImpactIntegrity ImpactAvailability Impact

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L

Attack Vector
NetworkAdjacentLocalPhysical
Attack Complexity
LowHigh
Privileges Required
NoneLowHigh
User Interaction
NoneRequired
Scope
ChangedUnchanged
Confidentiality Impact
HighLowNone
Integrity Impact
HighLowNone
Availability Impact
HighLowNone

Vulnerability timeline

Timeline events are normalized from CVE metadata, CNA source timelines, ADP timelines, and KEV metadata when present.

  1. Source timelineDSF

    Initial report received.

  2. CVE reservedCVE Program

    The CVE ID was reserved by the assigning CNA.

  3. Source timelineDSF

    Vulnerability confirmed.

  4. Source timelineDSF

    Security release issued.

  5. ADP timelineredhat-SADP

    Made public.

  6. CVE publishedCVE Program

    The CVE record was published.

  7. ADP timelineredhat-SADP

    Reported to Red Hat.

  8. CVE updatedCVE Program

    The CVE record metadata indicates this as the latest update time.

ADP provider summaries

CISA-ADPCISA ADP Vulnrichment
cvssV3_1other:ssvc
redhat-SADPDjango: Django: SQL Injection via RasterField band index parameter
other:Red Hat severity ratingcvssV3_1
  • 2026-02-03T15:00:58.388Z: Reported to Red Hat.
  • 2026-02-03T14:35:33.721Z: Made public.

Source materials

Affected products

Products and packages named in the record

VendorProductVersion / packageStatus
djangoprojectDjangodjango, 6.0, 6.0.2, 5.2, 5.2.11, 4.2, 4.2.28unaffected
Weakness

CWE details

CWE-89

CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.

CWE-89 · source CWE mapping

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.

Open CWE intelligenceSame-CWE CVEs