CVE-2020-26194
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 8.1.2 and 8.2.2 contain an Incorrect Permission Assignment for a Critical Resource vulnerability. This may allow a non-admin user with either ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_CONSOLE or ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_SSH privileges to exploit the vulnerability, leading to compromised cryptographic operations. 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 · moderate confidenceDell EMC PowerScale OneFS versions 8.1.2 and 8.2.2 contain an incorrect permission assignment vulnerability where non-admin users with specific privileges (ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_CONSOLE or ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_SSH) can access critical resources, leading to compromised cryptographic operations. This represents a privilege escalation issue allowing unauthorized access to cryptographic functions.
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= 8.1.2= 8.2.2CVSS 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.
-
Identify PowerScale OneFS versionRun `isi version` or check the OneFS web administration interface under Cluster > Overview to view the installed OneFS version.Affected if The installed version is exactly 8.1.2 or exactly 8.2.2.
-
List all local user accountsRun `isi auth users list` or access the OneFS web UI under Access > Users and Groups to enumerate non-admin user accounts.Affected if Any non-admin user accounts exist on the system.
-
Inspect privileges for non-admin usersRun `isi auth users view <username>` for each non-admin user, or use `isi auth roles list` to review role assignments and check for the ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_CONSOLE or ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_SSH privileges.Affected if Any non-admin user account is assigned either ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_CONSOLE or ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_SSH privilege.
-
Verify privilege escalation exposureReview the output from the user privilege checks to confirm that non-admin accounts have login console or SSH access privileges that should not be granted to standard users.Affected if Non-admin users with ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_CONSOLE or ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_SSH privileges exist on a system running OneFS 8.1.2 or 8.2.2.
You are affected if your PowerScale OneFS is version 8.1.2 or 8.2.2 AND any non-admin user account holds ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_CONSOLE or ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_SSH privileges.
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 Dell EMC patches for PowerScale OneFS 8.1.2 and 8.2.2. Review user role assignments to ensure no non-admin accounts have ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_CONSOLE or ISI_PRIV_LOGIN_SSH privileges unless explicitly required, following least-privilege principles.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-26194 — 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-2020-26194 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