CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-21727

Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource

Published: Apr 15, 2026 | Modified: Apr 20, 2026
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
3.8 LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Ubuntu
MEDIUM
root.io logo minimus.io logo echo.ai logo

title: Cross-Tenant Legacy Correlation Disclosure and Deletion draft: false hero: image: /static/img/heros/hero-legal2.svg content: # Cross-Tenant Legacy Correlation Disclosure and Deletion date: 2026-01-29 product: Grafana severity: Low cve: CVE-2026-21727 cvss_score: 3.3 cvss_vector: CVSS:3.3/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N fixed_versions:

  • =11.6.11 >=12.0.9 >=12.1.6 >=12.2.4


A cross-tenant isolation vulnerability was found in Grafana’s Correlations feature affecting legacy correlation records. Due to a backward compatibility condition allowing org_id = 0 records to be returned across organizations, a user with datasource management privileges could read and permanently delete legacy correlation data belonging to another organization. This issue affects correlations created prior to Grafana 10.2 and is fixed in >=11.6.11, >=12.0.9, >=12.1.6, and >=12.2.4.

Thanks to Gyu-hyeok Lee (g2h) for reporting this vulnerability.

Weakness

The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.

Affected Software

NameVendorStart VersionEnd Version
GrafanaGrafana*11.6.11 (excluding)
GrafanaGrafana12.0.0 (including)12.0.9 (excluding)
GrafanaGrafana12.1.0 (including)12.1.6 (excluding)
GrafanaGrafana12.2.0 (including)12.2.4 (excluding)
GrafanaGrafana12.3.0 (including)12.3.3 (excluding)
GrafanaUbuntuesm-apps/xenial*

Potential Mitigations

  • Run the code in a “jail” or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
  • OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
  • This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
  • Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

References