VulnerabilityPublished 30 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-13720: Grafana OSS · Improper Authorization

Affects Grafana OSSSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium · fixed in 13.2.3 : update Grafana OSS when convenient.

Data as of 12 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 4% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 13.2.3, 13.1.7, 13.0.10 +1

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 30 Sep 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 13 Nov 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

ghsa-9q62-r26p-xcjv

What to do

Upgrade Grafana to 13.2.3, 13.1.7, 13.0.10 or 12.4.12.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GrafanaGrafana OSS	Affected >=12.0.0 <=12.0.10 >=12.1.0 <=12.1.10 >=12.2.0 <=12.2.11 >=12.3.0 <=12.3.11 >=12.4.0 <12.4.12 >=13.0.0 <13.0.10 >=13.1.0 <13.1.7 >=13.2.0 <13.2.3	Fixed in 13.2.3 13.1.7 13.0.10 12.4.12
GrafanaGrafana Enterprise	Affected >=12.0.0 <=12.0.10 >=12.1.0 <=12.1.10 >=12.2.0 <=12.2.11 >=12.3.0 <=12.3.11 >=12.4.0 <12.4.12 >=13.0.0 <13.0.10 >=13.1.0 <13.1.7 >=13.2.0 <13.2.3	Fixed in 13.2.3 13.1.7 13.0.10 12.4.12

AI-suggested

If you cannot patch yet, organizations should review Editor permissions and monitor dashboard provisioning activities to mitigate potential misuse.

Description

An Editor can set file-provisioning metadata (the grafana.app/managedBy, grafana.app/managerId and grafana.app/sourcePath annotations) when creating a dashboard through the dashboard API, because these fields were stored without an authorization check. The dashboard then appears file-provisioned, and administrators can no longer update or delete it through Grafana. The impact is limited to the same organization and no data is exposed.

CWE-285Improper Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-915Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies multiple attributes, properties, or fields that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control which attributes can be modified.
Implementation
If available, use features of the language or framework that allow specification of allowlists of attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified. If possible, prefer allowlists over denylists.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
Implementation · Input Validation
For any externally-influenced input, check the input against an allowlist of internal object attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
Infrastructure as Code (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-345Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V13.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cache Poisoning (opens in a new tab)
DNS Cache Poisoning (opens in a new tab)
Spoofing of UDDI/ebXML Messages (opens in a new tab)
Application API Message Manipulation via Man-in-the-Middle (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

grafana.com/security/security-advisories/cve-2026-13720 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Sep 2026, 11:27 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-285, CWE-915, CWE-345

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats