CVE-2020-26195
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 – 9.1.0 contain an issue where the OneFS SMB directory auto-create may erroneously create a directory for a user. A remote unauthenticated attacker may take advantage of this issue to slow down the system.
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 through 9.1.0 contain a vulnerability in the SMB directory auto-create functionality that erroneously creates directories for users. A remote unauthenticated attacker can exploit this behavior to trigger excessive directory creation, causing system slowdown and potential denial of service.
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= 8.2.0= 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
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 PowerScale OneFS versionRun 'isi version' or check the OneFS web UI under Cluster Management > General > Version to identify the installed OneFS versionAffected if The installed version matches 8.1.2, 8.2.0, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 9.0.0, or 9.1.0
-
Verify SMB service is enabledRun 'isi smb status' or check the OneFS web UI under Protocols > SMB > Settings to confirm SMB service is runningAffected if SMB is enabled and the version check above shows an affected release
-
Confirm SMB directory auto-create is enabledRun 'isi smb shares list' or inspect the SMB share configuration in the web UI to identify if directory auto-creation is turned on for any shareAffected if SMB directory auto-create feature is enabled on one or more SMB shares
-
Check SMB access controlsReview SMB share access permissions and authentication settings via 'isi smb shares view <sharename>' or the web UI to determine if unauthenticated access is permittedAffected if SMB shares allow unauthenticated or guest access without requiring valid credentials
You are affected if your OneFS version matches 8.1.2 through 9.1.0 AND SMB directory auto-create is enabled with SMB exposed to unauthenticated network access.
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 vendor-provided security patches when available. Until patch deployment, consider disabling SMB directory auto-create functionality if business requirements permit, or implement network-level access controls to limit unauthorized SMB requests.
- Consultation3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-26195 — 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-2020-26195 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