CVE-2015-4545
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 · uneditedEMC Isilon OneFS 7.1 before 7.1.1.8, 7.2.0 before 7.2.0.4, and 7.2.1 before 7.2.1.1 allows remote authenticated administrators to bypass a SmartLock root-login restriction by creating a root account and establishing a login session.
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 · high confidenceEMC Isilon OneFS contains a privilege escalation vulnerability where authenticated administrators can bypass SmartLock root-login restrictions by creating a root account and establishing a login session, effectively gaining unauthorized root access to the system.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 7.1.1.7= 7.1.0.0= 7.1.0.1= 7.1.0.2= 7.1.0.3= 7.1.0.4= 7.1.0.5= 7.1.1.0= 7.1.1.1= 7.2.0.0= 7.2.0.2= 7.2.1.0CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Check OneFS versionRun the OneFS version command (such as 'isi version' or 'isi_get_version') to retrieve the installed OneFS version numberAffected if The installed version is 7.1.0.0 through 7.1.0.5, 7.1.1.0 through 7.1.1.7, 7.2.0.0, 7.2.0.2, or 7.2.1.0 (versions at or below 7.1.1.7, or specifically equal to any listed affected version)
-
Verify SmartLock statusCheck if the SmartLock feature is enabled on the system by examining the OneFS configuration (typically via 'isi smb' or authentication settings)Affected if SmartLock is enabled and the OneFS version falls within the affected range listed above
-
Review administrative user accountsList all local user accounts with root-level privileges using the OneFS authentication administration tools (such as 'isi auth' commands)Affected if There are root accounts present other than the expected system default root account, or if unauthorized administrator-created accounts exist with root access
-
Audit recent account creation eventsReview OneFS audit logs or system logs for recent creation of root-level accounts, focusing on actions performed by authenticated administratorsAffected if Root accounts were created after the initial system setup, indicating potential exploitation of this vulnerability
You are affected if your OneFS version is within the affected list (versions <= 7.1.1.7, or exactly 7.1.0.0-7.1.0.5, 7.1.1.0-7.1.1.1, 7.2.0.0, 7.2.0.2, or 7.2.1.0) AND SmartLock is enabled and you discover unexpected root accounts or unauthorized administrative privilege escalation.
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 dataUpgrade EMC Isilon OneFS to version 7.1.1.8, 7.2.0.4, 7.2.1.1 or later to resolve the vulnerability.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-4545 — 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-2015-4545 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