CVE-2026-61599

HIGHPre-NVD 8.88.8
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

This high-severity CVE scores 8.8 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: 0.6% (48th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.

Triggered by: Headline CVSS from a secondary CVSS source
Sources: EPSS, a secondary CVSS source
Trending — 3 sources updated this week

Also known asEUVD-2026-81307 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-7prp-2623-8g45 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

8.8EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.6%CVSS: 8.8Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

djust provides Phoenix LiveView-style reactive server-side rendering for Django with Rust-powered performance. Prior to version 1.0.7, the djust live transport resolves the LiveView to mount from a client-supplied dotted path by calling __import__(module_path, ...). The module is imported — running its top-level code (import side effects) — before the framework checks that the resolved object is a LiveView subclass and before any per-view authentication. The LIVEVIEW_ALLOWED_MODULES allowlist that should contain this is fail-open (if allowed_modules: — skipped when the setting is unset, the framework default) and uses loose startswith matching. An unauthenticated WebSocket client (the WS handshake does not require auth; per-view auth runs only after import + instantiate) can therefore send a mount / live_redirect_mount / url_change frame (or an SSE mount) with view = ".AnyName" and cause the server to import — and execute the top-level code of — any importable Python module by name. Version 1.0.7 fixes the issue with a fail-closed resolution gate (djust._view_resolution.is_view_import_allowed): a client view path resolves only if (a) its module is already loaded (sys.modules — so resolving runs no new code; URL-routed views loaded by URLconf at startup keep working with zero config) or (b) it matches LIVEVIEW_ALLOWED_MODULES on a module-segment boundary (explicit opt-in for lazily-imported views). The gate runs before __import__ at all three sinks (+ defense-in-depth inside _instantiate_view). As a workaround, set LIVEVIEW_ALLOWED_MODULES to the narrow list of modules that contain your mountable LiveView classes. (Note: pre-patch the allowlist is startswith-matched and the import still precedes the subclass check, so this is mitigation, not a complete fix.)

CVSS v3
8.8
EG Score
8.8HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
55
EG Risk 55/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity88% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 8.8 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.6% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability100% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: yes (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
EPSS PROB
0.6%
EPSS %ILE
48th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (8.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
8.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
EG Likelihood
0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.

Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

September 16, 2026

Last Modified

September 30, 2026

Advisory Details (2)

Auto-updated Sep 16, 2026
Patch available. Sources: github, github_release.
GitHub release Patch Available

v1.0.7

Patch available: djust-org/djust v1.0.7

https://github.com/djust-org/djust/releases/tag/v1.0.7
GitHub advisoryMentions a patch (unverified)

Unauthenticated arbitrary module import via the WebSocket/SSE view-mount path · Advisory · djust-org/djust · GitHub

https://github.com/djust-org/djust/security/advisories/GHSA-7prp-2623-8g45

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-61599(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(1)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
pipdjust @ 1.0.7 (fixes < 1.0.7)—ghsa

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(1 across 1 ecosystem)
PyPI(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
djust0.1.0 ... 1.0.6 (40 versions)
  • every version up to 1.0.7: fixed in 1.0.7
—

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 10× in last 7d / 49× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-01 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  2. 2026-11-01 07:41 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-7prp-2623-8g45 · GitHub severity HIGH
  3. 2026-11-01 07:41 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-31 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  5. 2026-10-30 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  6. 2026-10-29 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  7. 2026-10-28 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  8. 2026-10-27 18:44 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-10-27 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  10. 2026-10-26 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  11. 2026-10-25 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  12. 2026-10-25 14:14 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-24 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  14. 2026-10-23 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  15. 2026-10-22 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  16. 2026-10-21 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  17. 2026-10-20 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  18. 2026-10-20 09:24 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-10-19 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  20. 2026-10-18 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  21. 2026-10-18 03:25 UTCEG score recompute
  22. 2026-10-17 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  23. 2026-10-16 16:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  24. 2026-10-15 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  25. 2026-10-14 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
Show 54 more
  1. 2026-10-13 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  2. 2026-10-13 13:22 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-12 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  4. 2026-10-12 15:50 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-11 19:34 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-11 16:49 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-11 14:11 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-11 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  9. 2026-10-11 03:46 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  11. 2026-10-10 01:17 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-10-09 20:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  13. 2026-10-09 00:10 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-10-08 17:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  15. 2026-10-08 00:56 UTCEG score recompute
  16. 2026-10-07 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  17. 2026-10-07 01:40 UTCEG score recompute
  18. 2026-10-06 15:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  19. 2026-10-06 02:23 UTCEG score recompute
  20. 2026-10-05 17:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  21. 2026-10-05 03:08 UTCEG score recompute
  22. 2026-10-04 23:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  23. 2026-10-03 15:57 UTCEG score recompute
  24. 2026-10-03 14:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  25. 2026-10-03 04:19 UTCEG score recompute
  26. 2026-10-02 17:56 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  27. 2026-10-02 05:01 UTCEG score recompute
  28. 2026-10-01 19:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  29. 2026-09-30 17:41 UTCEG score recompute
  30. 2026-09-30 15:03 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  31. 2026-09-29 18:24 UTCEG score recompute
  32. 2026-09-29 06:16 UTCEG score recompute
  33. 2026-09-28 18:39 UTCEG score recompute
  34. 2026-09-28 13:51 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  35. 2026-09-27 19:22 UTCEG score recompute
  36. 2026-09-26 20:05 UTCEG score recompute
  37. 2026-09-26 15:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  38. 2026-09-26 08:25 UTCEG score recompute
  39. 2026-09-24 21:31 UTCEG score recompute
  40. 2026-09-23 21:33 UTCEG score recompute
  41. 2026-09-23 17:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 31st percentile
  42. 2026-09-22 22:19 UTCEG score recompute
  43. 2026-09-21 23:02 UTCEG score recompute
  44. 2026-09-20 23:48 UTCEG score recompute
  45. 2026-09-20 20:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 31st percentile
  46. 2026-09-20 00:30 UTCEG score recompute
  47. 2026-09-19 01:16 UTCEG score recompute
  48. 2026-09-18 19:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 31st percentile
  49. 2026-09-18 02:02 UTCEG score recompute
  50. 2026-09-17 14:24 UTCEG score recompute
  51. 2026-09-17 13:35 UTCEG score recompute
  52. 2026-09-16 23:28 UTCEG score recompute
  53. 2026-09-16 22:24 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 8.8 HIGH
  54. 2026-09-16 22:24 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Related CVEs(same product + same CWE)

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-61599?
CVE-2026-61599 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on September 16, 2026. djust provides Phoenix LiveView-style reactive server-side rendering for Django with Rust-powered performance. Prior to version 1.0.7, the djust live transport resolves the LiveView to mount from a client-supplied dotted path by calling __import__(module_path, ...). The module is imported — running…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-61599 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-61599 was published on September 16, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of September 30, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-61599 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-61599 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.6% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (48th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-61599?
CVE-2026-61599 has a CVSS base score of 8.8 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-61599?
A fix for CVE-2026-61599 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-61599 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-61599

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-61599?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.

Book a Demo →Browse All CVEs