CVE-2026-15815
CVE-2026-15815 CVE Record
Grafana OSS and Grafana Enterprise did not safely resolve symbolic links when extracting plugin archives. A crafted plugin archive can chain relative symbolic link entries to escape the plugin installation directory, writing arbitrary files and an executable backend binary outside that directory. The dropped executable runs with the privileges of the Grafana server process, resulting in remote code execution. Plugin archives are extracted before their signature is verified, so a valid plugin signature does not prevent the write. An operator can therefore be affected by installing a plugin that appears legitimate, as well as by installing a plugin from an arbitrary archive using grafana-cli, the GF_INSTALL_PLUGINS environment variable, or preinstall configuration. Grafana Enterprise is affected because it includes the same plugin extraction code as Grafana OSS.
Published Updated Sources: NVD, Grafana (CNA), GitHub, SOCRadar CTI
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.
Exploitation
Exploit code
public exploit, none observed
EPSS
0%
ahead of 0% of scored CVEs
CVSS base
8.8
high
CISA SSVC assessment
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Total
partial · total control of the vulnerable component
Remediation
The vendor's own words where we have them.
Upgrade Grafana OSS to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.
- Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
- Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
- Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grafana | Grafana OSS | 11.6.0 to <= 11.6.17 | Vulnerable |
| Grafana | Grafana OSS | 12.0.0 | Vulnerable |
| Grafana | Grafana OSS | 12.1.0 | Vulnerable |
| Grafana | Grafana OSS | 12.2.0 | Vulnerable |
| Grafana | Grafana OSS | 12.3.0 | Vulnerable |
| Grafana | Grafana OSS | 12.4.0 to <= 12.4.10 | Vulnerable |
| Grafana | Grafana OSS | 13.0.0 to <= 13.0.8 | Vulnerable |
| Grafana | Grafana OSS | 13.1.0 to <= 13.1.5 | Vulnerable |
| Grafana | Grafana OSS | 13.2.0 to <= 13.2.1 | Vulnerable |
| Grafana | Grafana Enterprise | 11.6.0 to <= 11.6.17 | Vulnerable |
| Grafana | Grafana Enterprise | 12.0.0 | Vulnerable |
| Grafana | Grafana Enterprise | 12.1.0 | Vulnerable |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Availability
High
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Scope
Unchanged
Attack Complexity
Low
Attack Vector
Network
Privileges Req
None
User Interaction
Required
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.8 | CVSS 3.1 | high | 2.8 | 5.9 | grafana.com (CNA), Grafana (CNA) |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
What this weakness leads to
MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.
CWE-94 · Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Bypass Protection Mechanism
- Gain Privileges or Assume Identity
- Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
- Hide Activities
Mitigation: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
CWE-22 · Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
- Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
- Modify Files or Directories
- Read Files or Directories
- DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart
Mitigation: 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 be removed from the original string, but the remaining characters would still form the ../ string.
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-59Link Following
- CWE-94Code Injection
- CWE-22Path Traversal
Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.
- T1547.009Boot or Logon Autostart Execution: Shortcut Modification
- T1574.005Hijack Execution Flow: Executable Installer File Permissions Weakness
- T1574.010Hijack Execution Flow: Services File Permissions Weakness
Public exploit
Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.
Repositories
5
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.
- Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable Grafana OSS, Grafana Enterprise.
- Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 5 public PoC repositories were reported.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.
- 2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 8.8 (AV:N)
Sep 19, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Sep 17, 2026 · NVD
CVE published by MITRE.
Sep 17, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
References
1 on the record
- grafana.com/security/security-advisories/cve-2026-15815
Vendor Advisory
Elsewhere on this site
- Grafanaevery CVE for this vendor
- Path Traversalsame class
- CWE-59other pages naming this weakness
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record1
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-15815 is CVE-2026-15815 CVE Record, a high vulnerability affecting Grafana OSS, Grafana Enterprise from Grafana. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-15815. Public exploit evidence is: 5 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 8.8 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.