Yes. CISA added CVE-2021-39226 to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue on 25 August 2022, which it does only when there is reliable evidence of active exploitation. CISA has not linked it to known ransomware campaigns. Grafana contains an authentication bypass vulnerability that allows authenticated and unauthenticated users to view and delete all snapshot data, potentially resulting in complete snapshot data loss.
What “being exploited in the wild” means for this Grafana CVE
For a CVE like this, “in the wild” has a practical meaning: the issue is no longer just theoretical or lab-confirmed. It is already being used against real systems, so defenders should treat it as an active exposure window, not a future patch-planning item. That changes urgency, verification, and response sequencing.
For active exploitation questions, the first useful step is to confirm whether Grafana is present, exposed, and reachable in a way that matches the vulnerable surface. The question is not only “is the CVE exploited?” but “could an attacker reach this instance before you remediate?” That distinction matters because internet exposure, weak segmentation, and stale admin assumptions often drive real-world impact.
How to validate exposure and reduce blast radius quickly
If Grafana is externally reachable, or reachable from a broad internal network, assume the defensive window is short. The safest operating assumption is that exploitation can begin before a change window opens, so access restrictions, emergency maintenance, and compensating controls should be assessed immediately alongside patching.
When patching must wait, focus on containment rather than reassurance. Restrict access to trusted administrative networks, remove unnecessary exposure, review whether snapshot functionality is required at all, and monitor for unusual snapshot activity or deletion requests. If the vulnerable feature is business-critical, reduce the number of users and systems that can interact with it until remediation is complete.
For a practical triage path, CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog should be checked first because it is the authoritative signal that the flaw is being used operationally. Pair that with the vendor advisory and your own asset inventory so you can distinguish confirmed exposure from assumed exposure.
What the exploitation path can change operationally
Authentication bypass issues are especially dangerous because they can collapse trust boundaries faster than a simple denial-of-service flaw. Here, the consequence described on the page is snapshot data loss, which means the operational concern is not only unauthorized access but also destructive action once access is obtained. That makes integrity and recoverability as important as perimeter hardening.
If there is any sign of compromise, check whether snapshot data was viewed, exported, or deleted before you focus only on the patch. The incident question is broader than version management: a bypass can enable an attacker to act with the application’s own authority, so compromise assessment should include admin actions, audit logs, and any dependent automation that consumes Grafana data or snapshots.
For background on the active exploitation triage model, Zero-Day and Exploited Vulnerabilities Guide is the best fit because it covers KEV-style prioritisation, emergency mitigation, and post-patch hunting. For teams that need a broader control lens, Vulnerability Management Guide helps anchor the operational response in prioritisation, exceptions, and verification.
Risk and Threat Considerations
Active exploitation changes this from a software defect into an immediate exposure problem. The main threat is that attackers can use the bypass before defenders complete patching or even before they have confirmed which instances are reachable, which makes stale inventory and delayed remediation especially dangerous.
Failure mechanism: The authentication check is bypassed, so a remote user can interact with snapshot functions without the normal trust boundary being enforced. In practice, that can allow unauthorized viewing or deletion of snapshot data even when administrators believe access is restricted.
Impact: The likely result is loss of confidentiality and integrity for snapshot data, plus a wider incident response burden if the exposed instance is internet-facing or integrated into production operations. Where snapshots are used for recovery or reporting, deletion can also create downstream operational disruption.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
CIS Controls v8, NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and OWASP ASVS set the technical controls, while ISO/IEC 27001:2022 defines the regulatory obligations.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| CIS Controls v8 | CIS-17 — Incident Response Management | Active exploitation requires a rapid containment and verification response. |
| Recommendation — Activate incident response playbooks and verify whether exploitation occurred before normal remediation closes the case. | ||
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 | RA-5 — Vulnerability Monitoring and Scanning | The question is about confirmed exploitation and prioritizing remediation of a known vulnerable asset. |
| SI-2 — Flaw Remediation | The CVE requires prompt remediation or mitigation once active exploitation is confirmed. | |
| Recommendation — Prioritize identified exploitable instances and verify remediation based on current vulnerability intelligence. Apply the fix or compensating mitigation immediately and track the exception until closure. | ||
| ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | A.8.8 — Management of technical vulnerabilities | Exploit-in-the-wild handling is a technical vulnerability management problem requiring timely treatment. |
| Recommendation — Triage the exposed Grafana instance as a high-priority technical vulnerability and remediate or mitigate it quickly. | ||
| OWASP ASVS | V6 — Authentication | The flaw is an authentication bypass affecting access control to application functions. |
| V8 — Authorization | The impact includes unauthorized viewing and deletion of snapshot data through broken access enforcement. | |
| Recommendation — Review authentication enforcement around the affected application path and confirm the bypass is removed. Verify authorization checks on snapshot actions and restrict destructive operations to trusted administrators. | ||
Practitioner Guidance
What to prioritise: Confirm whether any Grafana instance is exposed to untrusted networks, then treat those instances as urgent even if you have not seen abuse yet. In an active-exploitation scenario, exposure drives priority as much as detection does.
What to verify: Check logs for snapshot access, deletion, or unusual administrative activity around the relevant period, and verify whether any snapshots were removed or altered before remediation. If the instance supports business reporting or incident recovery, validate downstream dependence on that data before you close the case.
Decision rule: If you cannot patch immediately, narrow access first, disable or limit unnecessary functionality, and document the temporary exception with an expiry date. Do not treat “no alerts” as evidence of safety when the vulnerability is already being used in the wild.
Practitioner takeaway: For an exploited CVE, the right question is not only whether it is real, but whether your instance is still reachable under the attacker conditions that matter.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
- Is CVE-2020-2021 (Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS Authentication Bypass) being exploited in the wild?
- Is CVE-2021-33045 (Dahua IP Camera Authentication Bypass) being exploited in the wild?
- How do you patch or mitigate CVE-2021-39226 (Grafana Authentication Bypass)?
- Is CVE-2021-44515 (Zoho Desktop Central Authentication Bypass) being exploited in the wild?