CVE-2015-6848
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.x before 7.1.1.5, 7.2.0.x before 7.2.0.3, and 7.2.1.x before 7.2.1.1, when the RFC 2307 feature is configured but SFU is not universally present, allows remote authenticated AD users to obtain root privileges via unspecified vectors.
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 Active Directory users can obtain root privileges when the RFC 2307 feature (which maps UNIX attributes to AD) is configured but SFU (Services for Unix) is not universally present across all AD objects. This configuration mismatch allows authenticated AD users to escalate to root via unspecified vectors.
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<= 7.1.1.0= 7.1.1.1= 7.1.1.2= 7.1.1.3= 7.1.1.4= 7.2.0.0= 7.2.0.1= 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
- M
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:M/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
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.
-
Determine OneFS versionRun the command 'isi version' or 'isi status' on the Isilon cluster to retrieve the installed OneFS version number.Affected if The installed version is 7.1.1.0 or earlier, OR one of the specific versions 7.1.1.1 through 7.1.1.4, 7.2.0.0 through 7.2.0.2, or 7.2.1.0.
-
Verify RFC 2307 mapping is configuredUse the OneFS CLI or WebUI to check the Active Directory configuration. Run 'isi auth ad' or inspect the LDAP/AD integration settings to determine if RFC 2307 attribute mapping (UNIX attributes) is enabled.Affected if RFC 2307 mapping is enabled and configured for the Active Directory integration.
-
Inspect SFU deployment across AD objectsExamine the Active Directory environment to determine if Services for Unix (SFU) is uniformly present across all AD user and group objects. Check whether all objects have the required UNIX attributes populated consistently.Affected if SFU is NOT universally present across all AD users and groups while RFC 2307 mapping is active, creating the vulnerable configuration mismatch.
-
Confirm AD authentication is activeVerify that authenticated Active Directory user access is permitted on the Isilon cluster by checking the authentication providers configuration.Affected if Active Directory authentication is enabled and users can log in to OneFS.
A user is affected if their OneFS version matches the affected list AND RFC 2307 mapping is enabled while SFU attributes are inconsistently applied across AD objects, allowing an authenticated AD user to potentially escalate to root.
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 dataApply the vendor-supplied patches (7.1.1.5, 7.2.0.3, or 7.2.1.1 or later). Alternatively, if patching is not immediately feasible, disable RFC 2307 mapping or ensure SFU is uniformly deployed across all AD users and groups to eliminate the vulnerable configuration state.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-6848 — 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-2015-6848 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