CVE-2020-26192
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 · uneditedDell EMC PowerScale OneFS versions 8.2.0 - 9.1.0 contain a privilege escalation vulnerability. A non-admin user with either ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_CONSOLE or ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_SSH may potentially exploit this vulnerability to read arbitrary data, tamper with system software or deny service to users. Note: no non-admin users or roles have these privileges by default.
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 confidenceDell EMC PowerScale OneFS versions 8.2.0-9.1.0 contain a privilege escalation vulnerability where non-admin users possessing either ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_CONSOLE or ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_SSH privileges can potentially read arbitrary data, tamper with system software, or cause denial of service. The issue stems from insufficient access controls on these login-related privileges that should be restricted to admin-only users.
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= 8.2.0= 8.2.1= 8.2.2= 9.0.0= 9.1.0CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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 PowerScale OneFS versionRun the command `isi version` or view the version in the OneFS web administration interface under Cluster > Management > Cluster IdentityAffected if The installed version is 8.2.0, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 9.0.0, or 9.1.0
-
List all users and their role assignmentsRun `isi auth users list` to enumerate all users on the system and note which roles are assigned to eachAffected if Non-admin users exist on the system with assigned roles
-
Identify non-admin users with login privilegesFor each non-admin user, examine their role permissions by running `isi auth users view <username>` or `isi auth roles list` to see if ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_CONSOLE or ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_SSH privileges are grantedAffected if Any non-admin user possesses either ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_CONSOLE or ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_SSH privileges in their role definition
-
Verify role privilege assignmentsRun `isi auth roles list` followed by `isi auth roles view <rolename>` to inspect each role's privilege set, specifically checking for the presence of ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_CONSOLE or ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_SSHAffected if Any role assigned to non-admin users includes ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_CONSOLE or ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_SSH privileges
You are affected if your OneFS version is 8.2.0-9.1.0 and non-admin users have been granted ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_CONSOLE or ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_SSH privileges, which should be restricted to admin-only roles.
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 dataReview all user role assignments to ensure no non-admin users have been granted ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_CONSOLE or ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_SSH privileges, and apply vendor patches when available to address the underlying privilege escalation flaw.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-26192 — 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-2020-26192 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