Skip to content

django CMS: Missing authorization in `render_object_structure` discloses non-PageContent placeholder structure to low-privileged staff

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 10, 2026 in django-cms/django-cms • Updated Sep 4, 2026

Package

pip django-cms (pip)

Affected versions

< 5.0.9

Patched versions

5.0.9

Description

Summary

The django-cms frontend-editing structure endpoint

GET /<lang>/admin/cms/placeholder/object/<content_type_id>/structure/<object_id>/

did not perform an object-level authorization check for non-PageContent objects. Any authenticated, active staff user could request the structure endpoint for a frontend-editable object (a model using PlaceholderRelationField) and read its placeholder/plugin structure, even without permission to change that object and without the cms.use_structure permission that the toolbar UI requires before offering structure mode.

PageContent objects were already protected (a page-view check added in GHSA/PR #8644); this advisory covers the remaining non-PageContent branch of the same view.

Severity

The issue is staff-gated and read-only, disclosing CMS structure metadata (placeholder slot names, plugin tree, plugin identifiers/labels, object existence) rather than write access or arbitrary field data.

Affected versions

  • django-cms >= 4.0.0, <= 5.0.x and 5.1.0a1
    (the vulnerable non-PageContent branch was introduced with the frontend-editing endpoints in 4.0)

Patched versions

  • django-cms TODO: 5.0.9

Preconditions

  • An authenticated, active staff account (is_staff=True).
  • The deployment exposes a non-PageContent model with django-cms placeholders / frontend editing (e.g. via PlaceholderRelationField).
  • The attacker can guess or enumerate the target content_type_id and object id.
  • The attacker needs no model/object change permission and no cms.use_structure permission.

Impact

A low-privileged staff user can read the editorial placeholder/plugin structure of non-PageContent objects they are not authorized to edit through the toolbar. Depending on the installed plugins and templates this may reveal placeholder names, plugin layout, plugin identifiers and the existence of objects owned by other staff users or teams. This is most relevant for deployments using third-party or custom django-cms apps that expose frontend-editable objects outside the page tree.

Proof of concept

Using django-cms' own test model placeholder_relation_field_app.FancyPoll (a non-PageContent model with a PlaceholderRelationField):

target = FancyPoll.objects.create(name="private-fancy-poll")
placeholder = rescan_placeholders_for_obj(target)["content"]
attacker = self._create_user("low_staff", is_staff=True, is_superuser=False)
# attacker has neither change_fancypoll nor cms.use_structure

with self.login_user_context(attacker):
    response = self.client.get(get_object_structure_url(target, language="en"))

# Before fix: HTTP 200, body contains '"placeholder_id": "<pk>"'
# After fix:  HTTP 404, structure not disclosed

Patch

render_object_structure now authorizes the non-PageContent branch, mirroring
Placeholder.has_change_permission at the object level (honouring a custom
has_placeholder_change_permission hook, otherwise falling back to the model/object
change permission) and returning 404 when the user is not authorized:

else:
    content_type_obj = content_type.get_object_for_this_type(pk=object_id)
    if not _can_change_placeholder_object(request.user, content_type_obj):
        raise Http404

Workarounds

No configuration workaround. Deployments that do not register any non-PageContent
frontend-editable model are not affected. Otherwise, upgrade to a patched release.

Credit

Reported by doanmanhducz.

References

@fsbraun fsbraun published to django-cms/django-cms Jul 10, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Aug 20, 2026
Reviewed Aug 20, 2026
Last updated Sep 4, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(10th percentile)

Weaknesses

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data. Learn more on MITRE.

Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-61663

GHSA ID

GHSA-8qj2-c6q4-f399

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.