CVE-2024-6322
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedAccess control for plugin data sources protected by the ReqActions json field of the plugin.json is bypassed if the user or service account is granted associated access to any other data source, as the ReqActions check was not scoped to each specific datasource. The account must have prior query access to the impacted datasource.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceThe ReqActions field in plugin.json defines access control requirements for data source plugins, but this check was not scoped to each specific data source. A user with query access to any one data source could bypass ReqActions protections on other data sources because the permission check was satisfied by access to any data source rather than the specific target data source.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:L
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the data source plugin platform and versionLocate the main application (likely Grafana or similar) and check its installed version using 'grafana-cli --version', 'grafana-server --version', or check the package manager/version fileAffected if The installed version falls within any affected version range for this vulnerability
-
List all configured data source pluginsCheck the data sources configuration directory (commonly 'provisioning/datasources' or 'conf/provisioning/datasources') or query the datasources API endpoint if accessibleAffected if Multiple data source plugins are configured and at least one has ReqActions defined in its plugin.json
-
Locate plugin.json files with ReqActions fieldFind plugin.json files for data source plugins in the plugins directory (typically 'data/plugins' or '/var/lib/grafana/plugins') and examine them for the ReqActions fieldAffected if Any plugin.json contains a ReqActions field defining access control requirements
-
Verify access control scoping for data sourcesReview the access control configuration files (such as datasources.yml in provisioning or role-based access control settings) and test whether permission to one data source grants access to others protected by ReqActionsAffected if A user with query access to only one data source can access other data sources that have ReqActions requirements
A user is affected if they run a version where ReqActions checks are not properly scoped per data source, allowing cross-data-source permission bypass.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataThe fix requires modifying the access control logic to properly scope ReqActions validation to each individual data source, ensuring that permission checks are evaluated against the specific data source being accessed rather than any data source the account can query.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-6322 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-6322 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data