VulnerabilityPublished 5 Jun 2026Updated 8 Jun 2026

CVE-2026-9270: BINARY DataDog::DogStatsd · CRLF Injection

Affects BINARY DataDog::DogStatsdSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 26% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 5 Jun 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 30 Oct 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.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
BINARYDataDog::DogStatsd	Affected <=0.07	Fixed in–
GitHubDataDog-DogStatsd`pkg:github/DataDog-DogStatsd`Other threats	Affected <=0.07	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Users should avoid passing untrusted input directly to the send_stats method, especially in metric names, values, or tags. Implement manual sanitization to remove newline characters and validate input before sending metrics. Monitor vendor advisories for updates or patches addressing this issue.

Description

DataDog::DogStatsd versions through 0.07 for Perl allow metric injections. DataDog::DogStatsd does not properly sanitise input, allowing metric injections of data from untrusted sources. The send_stats method does not remove newlines from metric names ($stat variable), allowing attackers to change the metric name prefix. The send_stats method does not validate the content of the value ($delta variable), allowing attackers to inject metrics, especially from methods that do not restrict the data type for the value, such as set, gauge, count and histogram. The send_stats method does not validate the content of the tags, which may contain newlines, pipes and colons that allow metric injections. Note that the SYNOPSIS shows an example of passing a website form "loginName" parameter as a tag, which is unsafe.

Impact

An attacker can inject arbitrary metrics or manipulate existing metrics by exploiting the lack of input sanitization and validation in the send_stats method. This can lead to corrupted or misleading metric data, impacting monitoring accuracy and potentially causing incorrect operational decisions based on falsified metrics. The vulnerability does not affect availability but compromises the integrity and confidentiality of metric data.

Summary

CVE-2026-9270 is a critical vulnerability in DataDog::DogStatsd versions <=0.07 for Perl, caused by improper neutralization of CRLF sequences (CWE-93) and insufficient input validation (CWE-150). The send_stats method fails to sanitize newlines in metric names ($stat), validate the content of metric values ($delta), and check tags for unsafe characters such as newlines, pipes, and colons. This allows attackers to perform metric injection attacks by supplying malicious input, potentially altering metric data and prefixes. The vulnerability arises from accepting untrusted input without proper sanitization, as exemplified by unsafe usage of user input like a website form parameter as a tag.

CWE-93Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences (CRLF Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product uses CRLF (carriage return line feeds) as a special element, e.g. to separate lines or records, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CRLF sequences from inputs.
Implementation
Avoid using CRLF as a special sequence.
Implementation
Appropriately filter or quote CRLF sequences in user-controlled input.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Web Server Logs Tampering (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-150Improper Neutralization of Escape, Meta, or Control Sequences (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as escape, meta, or control character sequences when they are sent to a downstream component.
Developers should anticipate that escape, meta and control characters/sequences will be injected/removed/manipulated in the input vectors of their product. Use an appropriate combination of denylists and allowlists to ensure only valid, expected and appropriate input is processed by the system.
Implementation · Input Validation
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.
Implementation · Output Encoding
While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Email Injection (opens in a new tab)
Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads (opens in a new tab)
Web Server Logs Tampering (opens in a new tab)
Log Injection-Tampering-Forging (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 13 Jun 2026, 09:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-93, CWE-150

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats