Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2024-9264 is a critical-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Grafana Grafana. Its CVSS base score is 9.4 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 0.2% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
Grafana's SQL Expressions experimental feature is affected by CVE-2024-9264, a command injection and local file inclusion vulnerability that stems from insufficient sanitization of user-supplied input before it is passed to the duckdb query engine. The issue is present in Grafana when this optional feature is enabled and requires the duckdb binary to be located in the process PATH, a condition that does not exist in default distributions.
Any authenticated user holding the VIEWER role or higher can exploit the flaw over the network to achieve arbitrary command execution and local file reads. The vulnerability is tracked under CWE-94 and CWE-77 and is rated 9.4 under CVSS 4.0, reflecting the absence of required user interaction and the broad impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
The Grafana security advisory at grafana.com/security/security-advisories/cve-2024-9264/ and the NetApp advisory NTAP-20250314-0007 describe the conditions required for exploitation and outline mitigation steps for operators running affected versions.
The associated EPSS score is currently 0.9405, equal to its recorded peak, indicating substantial exploitation likelihood without evidence of a post-disclosure climb from a low baseline.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-3110
Vulnerability Data
The SQL Expressions experimental feature of Grafana allows for the evaluation of `duckdb` queries containing user input. These queries are insufficiently sanitized before being passed to `duckdb`, leading to a command injection and local file inclusion vulnerability. Any user with…
more
the VIEWER or higher permission is capable of executing this attack. The `duckdb` binary must be present in Grafana's $PATH for this attack to function; by default, this binary is not installed in Grafana distributions.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8V1.2.9
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds code paths that accept and execute externally influenced strings.
Input validation directly stops untrusted data from being used to construct executable code without neutralization.
Least privilege limits the damage an injected code fragment can perform once executed.
Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.
Secure engineering principles include proper neutralization and safe command construction practices.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly target injection flaws via secure coding and testing (mostly), yet as a single broad outcome it leaves many code-generation specifics unaddressed (partial).
Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.
Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.
PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.