CVE-2020-26196
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 8.1.0-9.1.0 contain a Backup/Restore Privilege implementation issue. A user with the BackupAdmin role may potentially exploit this vulnerability resulting in the ability to write data outside of the intended file system location.
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 contains a privilege implementation flaw in its Backup/Restore functionality. A user with BackupAdmin role can write data outside the intended filesystem boundaries, allowing unauthorized file placement beyond the designated backup location.
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= 8.1.0= 8.1.1= 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
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 installationRun 'isi version' or check system information to confirm Dell EMC PowerScale OneFS is installedAffected if PowerScale OneFS is not present, then not affected by this CVE
-
Verify affected version rangeRun 'isi version' or check the OneFS firmware version against the affected list: 8.1.0, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.2.0, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 9.0.0, 9.1.0Affected if Installed version matches one of the affected versions listed in the CVE
-
Confirm BackupAdmin role is assignedUse 'isi auth roles' or check the authentication/authorization configuration to determine if any users or groups have the BackupAdmin role assignedAffected if BackupAdmin role is assigned to users or groups in the system
-
Review backup/restore audit logsExamine OneFS audit logs (isi audit' command) or backup job history for recent backup/restore operations performed by BackupAdmin usersAffected if Backup/restore operations have been executed using the BackupAdmin role
-
Inspect filesystem for out-of-scope file placementsCompare backup job destination paths with actual file placements across the filesystem; look for files in directories outside the designated backup target locations, especially in system directories or other IFS paths not intended as backup destinationsAffected if Files exist outside the designated backup location, indicating potential exploitation of the directory traversal flaw
The environment is affected if running a PowerScale OneFS version between 8.1.0 and 9.1.0 inclusive, with BackupAdmin role in active use, and files are found outside intended backup boundaries.
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 dataRestrict BackupAdmin role permissions to enforce proper filesystem scope boundaries and implement path validation to prevent directory traversal during backup/restore operations.
- Consultation2.0 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 $4,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-26196 — 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-2020-26196 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