Skip to content

GHSA-h5rh-w6vm-9ghc BIT-grafana-2021-27358 CVE-2021-27358

Denial of service in Grafana

High Go
Severity
8.2 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
83.04%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 99.67% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-306 Missing Authentication for Critical Function
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
Fix
7.4.2
Upgrade github.com/grafana/grafana to this version or later

Description

The snapshot feature in Grafana before 7.4.2 can allow an unauthenticated remote attackers to trigger a Denial of Service via a remote API call if a commonly used configuration is set.

Specific Go Packages Affected

github.com/grafana/grafana/pkg/middleware

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/grafana/grafana
>= 6.7.3, < 7.4.2
7.4.2

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 → 7.4.2

go
go get github.com/grafana/grafana@v7.4.2 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.2

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H/E:U/RL:O/RC:R

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
High
Exploit maturity
Unreported

Weakness

CWE-306: Missing Authentication for Critical Function

The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability. Identify all potential communication channels, or other means of interaction with the software, to ensure that all channels are appropriately protected, including those channels that are assumed to be accessible only by authorized parties. Developers sometimes perform authentication at the primary channel, but open up a secondary channel that is assumed to be private. For example, a login mechanism may be listening on one network port, but after successful authentication, it may open up a second port where it waits for the connection, but avoids authentication because it assumes that only the authenticated party will connect to the port. In general, if the software or protocol allows a single session or user state to persist across multiple connections or channels, authentication and appropriate credential management need to be used throughout.
  • 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.
  • Architecture and Design: Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment. These capabilities may avoid common weaknesses that are unique to authentication; support automatic auditing and tracking; and make it easier to provide a clear separation between authentication tasks and authorization tasks. In environments such as the World Wide Web, the line between authentication and authorization is sometimes blurred. If custom authentication routines are required instead of those provided by the server, then these routines must be applied to every single page, since these pages could be requested directly.
  • 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. For example, consider using libraries with authentication capabilities such as OpenSSL or the ESAPI Authenticator [REF-45].
  • Implementation, System Configuration, Operation: When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to require strong authentication for users who should be allowed to access the data [REF-1297] [REF-1298] [REF-1302].

CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Implementation: Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-8pjx-jj86-j47p
Grafana path traversal
High Known exploited Also affects github.com/grafana/grafana
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
Is this in your code?

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