PYSEC-2026-3827

    Dashboard / Vulnerabilities / PYSEC-2026-3827

    PYSEC-2026-3827

    Published: 10 Sept 2026Last Modified: 10 Sept 2026

    Summary: Django REST framework: Potential bypass of Django `DATA_UPLOAD_MAX_MEMORY_SIZE` when parsing oversized JSON and urlencoded request bodies via DRF `request.data`

    Details: ## Summary While investigating Django REST Framework's request parsing behavior, I identified that DRF's high-level `request.data` parsing appears to bypass Django's configured `DATA_UPLOAD_MAX_MEMORY_SIZE` protection for `application/json` and `application/x-www-form-urlencoded` request bodies. In the tested configurations, Django correctly raises `RequestDataTooBig` when applications access `request.body` or Django's native `request.POST`, but DRF successfully parses the same oversized payloads through `request.data`. This behavior appears to occur because DRF passes the underlying `HttpRequest` object directly to parsers, which consume the request stream through Django's lower-level streaming interface rather than the guarded `request.body` path. I am reporting this privately because I am unsure whether this behavior is considered part of DRF's intended security boundary, but it appears to bypass a documented Django request-size protection for common DRF request parsing paths and may have availability implications. # What I Verified I verified the behavior locally using the following combinations: * Django **6.0.7** + DRF **3.17.1** → **Affected** * Django **6.0.7** + DRF **current upstream main** → **Affected** For both versions, the observed behavior was: ``` Django request.body → RequestDataTooBig Django request.POST (application/x-www-form-urlencoded) → RequestDataTooBig Django request.read() → Reads the entire oversized request body DRF request.data → Successfully parses oversized JSON and urlencoded request bodies ``` I also confirmed that: * `multipart/form-data` remains protected because DRF delegates multipart parsing to Django's multipart parser. * The behavior reproduces on both direct WSGI and ASGI servers without a reverse proxy or external request-size middleware. # Technical Details The relevant execution flow is: ``` APIView ↓ rest_framework.request.Request ↓ request.data ↓ Request._load_data_and_files() ↓ Request._parse() ↓ Request._load_stream() ↓ self._stream = self._request ↓ JSONParser.parse(...) or FormParser.parse(...) ↓ stream.read() / json.load(...) ``` The important implementation detail is that DRF assigns the original Django `HttpRequest` object as the parser stream. Unlike `request.body` and Django's native form parsing, consuming the stream through `HttpRequest.read()` does not trigger Django's `RequestDataTooBig` protection. As a result, DRF's built-in parsers successfully consume oversized request bodies that Django itself would reject through its higher-level request interfaces. # Reproduction Steps ## Environment Python 3.13 Django 6.0.7 Django REST Framework 3.17.1 (also reproduced on current upstream main) Configure: ```python DATA_UPLOAD_MAX_MEMORY_SIZE = 10 ``` Create a simple DRF API view: ```python from rest_framework.views import APIView from rest_framework.response import Response class DemoView(APIView): def post(self, request): return Response(request.data) ``` Start the application. Send an oversized JSON request: ``` POST /demo Content-Type: application/json Content-Length: >10 bytes ``` Example: ```json { "value": "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA..." } ``` Observed: ``` HTTP 200 JSON successfully parsed ``` Now compare against: ```python request.body ``` Observed: ``` RequestDataTooBig ``` Likewise, compare against: ```python request.POST ``` using ``` application/x-www-form-urlencoded ``` Observed: ``` RequestDataTooBig ``` This demonstrates different enforcement depending on which request API is used. # Root Cause Django documents `HttpRequest.read()` as a streaming interface. DRF exposes `request.data` as the primary high-level request parsing API. Currently, DRF forwards the raw Django request stream directly to parsers before any request-size validation equivalent to Django's `request.body` path occurs. Consequently: * JSONParser * FormParser fully consume oversized request bodies despite Django's configured request-size limit. # Security Impact This does **not** appear to introduce: * Authentication bypass * Authorization bypass * Remote code execution * Information disclosure * Integrity compromise However, it may reduce the effectiveness of deployments relying on Django's `DATA_UPLOAD_MAX_MEMORY_SIZE` to limit request-body resource consumption. Potential consequences include: * Additional memory allocation during JSON parsing * Additional CPU usage while decoding large JSON payloads * Increased resource consumption when handling oversized request bodies * Reduced effectiveness of Django's configured request-size protection for DRF endpoints using `request.data` The practical impact depends on deployment configuration, including: * upstream request-size limits * reverse proxy configuration * authentication * rate limiting * endpoint exposure # Memory Observations During local testing I observed successful parsing of oversized request bodies despite the configured limit. Representative measurements showed significantly increased memory allocation while parsing large JSON and urlencoded payloads. I intentionally did **not** perform destructive concurrency testing or attempt to exhaust system resources. # Scope Confirmed affected: * application/json * application/x-www-form-urlencoded Confirmed not affected: * multipart/form-data # Suggested Fix Direction One possible approach would be for DRF to enforce Django's configured `DATA_UPLOAD_MAX_MEMORY_SIZE` before handing the raw request stream to parsers that fully materialize request bodies in memory. This would preserve Django's configured request-size protection for the common `request.data` API without requiring broader changes to Django's documented streaming interface. # Versions Tested Affected: * Django 6.0.7 + DRF 3.17.1 * Django 6.0.7 + DRF current upstream main I did not perform a complete historical version bisect. # Disclosure I have not publicly disclosed this behavior. I am submitting it privately in accordance with the project's security policy because I am unsure whether maintainers consider this part of DRF's intended security boundary. # Note: **Thank you for taking the time to review this report.** If you determine that this behavior should be addressed, I would be happy to help investigate further, develop a fix, add regression tests, and submit a patch if you'd find that helpful. I have experience as a **Python/Django software engineer, security researcher, and open-source contributor**, and I'd be glad to contribute if you think that would be useful.

    Affected packages

    Package

    Name: djangorestframework

    Purl: pkg:pypi/djangorestframework

    Affected ranges

    Type: ECOSYSTEM

    Events:

    Introduced- 0
    Fixed -3.17.2

    Affected versions

    0.1
    0.1.1

    Common Vulnerability Scoring System

    Attack Vector
    Network
    Adjacent
    Local
    Physical
    Privileges Required
    None
    Low
    High
    User Interaction
    None
    Required
    Scope
    Unchanged
    Changed
    Confidentiality
    None
    Low
    High
    Integrity
    None
    Low
    High
    Availability
    None
    Low
    High
    PYSEC-2026-3827 | CVE-DB