CVE-2025-21613VulnerabilityPublished 23 Jan 2025Updated 13 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: grafana security update

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-21614

Not known to be exploited : upgrade to 9.2.11 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

Severity

High

Rated by Threat Radar · No CVSS score from NVD or the CNA

EPSS: 1.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 69% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 9.2.11

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 23 Jan 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 2026-10-26.

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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC 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

Upgrade Red Hat to 9.2.11.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected >=9.2.10 <9.2.11 Red Hat Red Hat Enterprise Linux Red Hat Enterprise Linux AppStream EUS (v.9.4) src grafana-0:9.2.10-21.el9_4.src	Fixed in 9.2.11

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released updated Grafana packages for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.4 Extended Update Support that fix these vulnerabilities. Users should apply the provided security updates as detailed in the Red Hat advisory RHSA-2025:0662 and the referenced article https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258. No additional mitigation steps are indicated beyond applying the official patches.

Description

Grafana is an open source, feature rich metrics dashboard and graph editor for Graphite, InfluxDB & OpenTSDB. Security Fix(es): * go-git: argument injection via the URL field (CVE-2025-21613) * go-git: go-git clients vulnerable to DoS via maliciously crafted Git server replies (CVE-2025-21614) For more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, acknowledgments, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.

Impact

The vulnerabilities could allow attackers to inject arguments via the URL field, potentially leading to unintended behavior or exploitation, and to cause denial of service conditions by sending malicious Git server replies to go-git clients. The impact is rated as Important by Red Hat, indicating a significant security risk that could affect the availability and integrity of Grafana services using the affected go-git versions.

Summary

This advisory covers two security vulnerabilities in the go-git library used by Grafana. CVE-2025-21613 is an argument injection vulnerability via the URL field, which could allow an attacker to inject malicious arguments. CVE-2025-21614 is a denial of service vulnerability where go-git clients can be disrupted by maliciously crafted Git server replies. Red Hat has released updated Grafana packages for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.4 Extended Update Support to address these issues. The advisory references bugzilla entries BZ-2335888 and BZ-2335901 for the respective CVEs. No CVSS scores are provided in the advisory.

CWE-88Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
Implementation · Parameterization
Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application.
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.
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
Flash Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-770Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #25
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
Requirements
Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
Architecture and Design
Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V11.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Exponential Data Expansion (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data Parameter Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data with Nested Payloads (opens in a new tab)
Oversized Serialized Data Payloads (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 11 Aug 2026, 20:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-88, CWE-770

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats