GHSA-8pjx-jj86-j47p BIT-grafana-2021-43798 CVE-2021-43798
Grafana path traversal
- Severity
- 7.5 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 88.50%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 99.77% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- Yes
- In CISA's catalog since Oct 9, 2025
- Weakness
- CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
- Fix
8.3.1- Upgrade github.com/grafana/grafana to this version or later
Description
Today we are releasing Grafana 8.3.1, 8.2.7, 8.1.8, 8.0.7. This patch release includes a high severity security fix that affects Grafana versions from v8.0.0-beta1 through v8.3.0.
Release v8.3.1, only containing a security fix:
Release v8.2.7, only containing a security fix:
Release v8.1.8, only containing a security fix:
Release v8.0.7, only containing a security fix:
Path Traversal (CVE-2021-43798)
Summary
On 2021-12-03, we received a report that Grafana is vulnerable to directory traversal, allowing access to local files. We have confirmed this for versions 8.0.0-beta1 to 8.3.0. Thanks to our defense-in-depth approach, at no time has Grafana Cloud been vulnerable.
The vulnerable URL path is: <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/<plugin-id>/, where <plugin-id> is the plugin ID for any installed plugin.
Every Grafana instance comes with pre-installed plugins like the Prometheus plugin or MySQL plugin so the following URLs are vulnerable for every instance:
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/alertlist/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/annolist/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/barchart/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/bargauge/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/candlestick/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/cloudwatch/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/dashlist/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/elasticsearch/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/gauge/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/geomap/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/gettingstarted/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/grafana-azure-monitor-datasource/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/graph/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/heatmap/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/histogram/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/influxdb/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/jaeger/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/logs/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/loki/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/mssql/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/mysql/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/news/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/nodeGraph/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/opentsdb
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/piechart/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/pluginlist/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/postgres/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/prometheus/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/stackdriver/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/stat/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/state-timeline/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/status-history/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/table/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/table-old/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/tempo/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/testdata/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/text/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/timeseries/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/welcome/
- <grafana_host_url>/public/plugins/zipkin/
We have received CVE-2021-43798 for this issue. The CVSS score for this vulnerability is 7.5 High (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N) for Grafana versions 8.0.0-beta1 to 8.3.0
Affected versions with high severity
Grafana 8.0.0-beta1 to 8.3.0
Solutions and mitigations
All installations between v8.0.0-beta1 and v8.3.0 should be upgraded as soon as possible.
If you can not upgrade, running a reverse proxy in front of Grafana that normalizes the PATH of the request will mitigate the vulnerability. For example the normalize_path setting in envoy.
Thanks to our defense-in-depth approach, Grafana Cloud instances have not been affected by the vulnerability.
As always, we closely coordinated with all cloud providers licensed to offer Grafana Pro. They have received early notification under embargo and confirmed that their offerings are secure at the time of this announcement. In alphabetical order, this is applicable to Amazon Managed Grafana, and Azure Managed Grafana.
Timeline and postmortem
Here is a detailed timeline starting from when we originally learned of the issue. All times in UTC.
- 2021-12-03: Security researcher sends the initial report
- 2021-12-03: Confirmed for 8.0.0-beta1 through 8.3.0
- 2021-12-03: Confirmed that Grafana Cloud is not vulnerable
- 2021-12-03: Security fix determined and committed to Git
- 2021-12-03: Release timeline determined: 2021-12-07 for private customer release, 2021-12-14 for public release
- 2021-12-06: Second report about the vulnerability received
- 2021-12-07: We received information that the vulnerability has been leaked to the public, turning it into a 0 day
- 2021-12-07: Decision made to release as quickly as feasible
- 2021-12-07: Private release with reduced two hour grace period instead of the usual 1 week
- 2021-12-07: Public release
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Jordy Versmissen for finding the vulnerability and alerting us to it.
Reporting security Issues
If you think you have found a security vulnerability, please send a report to security@grafana.com. This address can be used for all of Grafana Labs' open source and commercial products (including but not limited to Grafana, Grafana Cloud, Grafana Enterprise, and grafana.com). We can accept only vulnerability reports at this address. We would prefer that you encrypt your message to us by using our PGP key. The key fingerprint is
F988 7BEA 027A 049F AE8E 5CAA D125 8932 BE24 C5CA
The key is available from keyserver.ubuntu.com.
Security announcements
We maintain a security category on our blog, where we will always post a summary, remediation, and mitigation details for any patch containing security fixes.
You can also subscribe to our RSS feed.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/grafana/grafana | >= 8.3.0, < 8.3.1 |
8.3.1 |
| github.com/grafana/grafana | >= 8.2.0, < 8.2.7 |
8.2.7 |
| github.com/grafana/grafana | >= 8.1.0, < 8.1.8 |
8.1.8 |
| github.com/grafana/grafana | >= 8.0.0-beta1, < 8.0.7 |
8.0.7 |
| github.com/grafana/grafana | >= 8.3.0, < 8.3.1 |
8.3.1 |
| github.com/grafana/grafana | >= 8.2.0, < 8.2.7 |
8.2.7 |
| github.com/grafana/grafana | >= 8.1.0, < 8.1.8 |
8.1.8 |
| github.com/grafana/grafana | >= 8.0.0-beta1, < 8.0.7 |
8.0.7 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
github.com/grafana/grafana Go → 8.3.1
- go
go get github.com/grafana/grafana@v8.3.1 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N/E:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
- Exploit maturity
- H
Weakness
CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes: realpath() in C getCanonicalPath() in Java GetFullPath() in ASP.NET realpath() or abs_path() in Perl realpath() in PHP
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
- Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-185] provide this capability.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Store library, include, and utility files outside of the web document root, if possible. Otherwise, store them in a separate directory and use the web server's access control capabilities to prevent attackers from directly requesting them. One common practice is to define a fixed constant in each calling program, then check for the existence of the constant in the library/include file; if the constant does not exist, then the file was directly requested, and it can exit immediately. This significantly reduces the chance of an attacker being able to bypass any protection mechanisms that are in the base program but not in the include files. It will also reduce the attack surface.
- Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.
- Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
References
Advisories
Fixes and patches
Packages
Other links
- packetstormsecurity.com/files/165198/Grafana-Arbitrary-File-Reading.html
- packetstormsecurity.com/files/165221/Grafana-8.3.0-Directory-Traversal-Arbitrary-File-Read.html
- openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/12/09/2
- openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/12/10/4
- grafana.com/blog/2021/12/08/an-update-on-0day-cve-2021-43798-grafana-directory-t…
- security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20211229-0004
- cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog
Timeline
- Published
- Added to CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
- Remediation due for U.S. federal agencies
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| CVE-2021-39226 Authentication bypass for viewing and deletions of snapshots | High Known exploited | Also affects github.com/grafana/grafana |
| GHSA-3w66-95m3-8jxg Grafana: Pre-authentication denial of service in the public dashboard query handler | High | Also affects github.com/grafana/grafana |
| GHSA-9g84-39mm-q4p3 Grafana geomap panel's XYZ tile layer has a sanitize-then-interpolate ordering bug | Medium | Also affects github.com/grafana/grafana |
| GHSA-f74p-cwhp-x2wx Grafana Loki datasource plugin's callResource handler contains a path traversal vulnerability. | High | Also affects github.com/grafana/grafana |
| GHSA-9493-h4f5-633x Grafana: Path traversal in the Tempo and Loki data source plugins | Medium | Also affects github.com/grafana/grafana |
| GHSA-wfhv-mj62-f5xh Grafana: Users can generate Service Account tokens after permissions removal | High | Also affects github.com/grafana/grafana |
| GHSA-gxcp-jjxh-rwp4 Grafana: SQL Expressions Read File From Disk | Medium | Also affects github.com/grafana/grafana |
| GHSA-p5x9-j974-rpfp Grafana legacy correlations allow cross-tenant disclosure and deletion | Low | Also affects github.com/grafana/grafana |
Credits: jordyv
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor