Emc Powerscale OnefsOperating system · Dell

CVE-2020-26197

CRITICAL · 9.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2021-04-20
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Dell PowerScale OneFS 8.1.0 - 9.1.0 contains an LDAP Provider inability to connect over TLSv1.2 vulnerability. It may make it easier to eavesdrop and decrypt such traffic for a malicious actor. Note: This does not affect clusters which are not relying on an LDAP server for the authentication provider.

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 confidence

The Dell PowerScale OneFS LDAP provider has an implementation flaw preventing proper TLSv1.2 negotiation for LDAP authentication traffic. This forces the use of weaker TLS versions (TLS 1.0/1.1) or fallback to plaintext, enabling malicious actors to potentially eavesdrop on and decrypt authentication credentials transmitted between the cluster and LDAP server.

MitigationApply vendor-supplied patches for Dell PowerScale OneFS 9.2.0 or later to enable proper TLSv1.2 enforcement. Clusters not using LDAP for authentication are unaffected and require no action.

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
Emc Powerscale OnefsOperating system
Affected:= 8.1.0= 8.1.1= 8.1.2= 8.2.2

CVSS 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
High
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify your PowerScale OneFS version
    Run the command `isi version` or `isi get -V` on the cluster CLI to retrieve the installed OneFS version number
    Affected if The displayed version matches exactly 8.1.0, 8.1.2, 8.1.2, or 8.2.2
  2. Confirm LDAP authentication is configured
    Run `isi auth ldap` to list configured LDAP providers. If no LDAP providers are shown, the system is not using LDAP authentication
    Affected if One or more LDAP providers are listed and actively configured for authentication
  3. Verify the TLS version in use for LDAP
    Check the LDAP provider configuration for the TLS version setting. On OneFS, you can inspect this via the web UI under Access > Authentication > LDAP, or check the output of `isi auth ldap view <provider_name>` for TLS protocol settings
    Affected if The configuration shows TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, or indicates no TLS (plaintext LDAP) is being used for the LDAP connection
  4. Review LDAP connection logs for TLS negotiation failures
    Examine OneFS audit or authentication logs for events related to LDAP bind failures or TLS negotiation issues. You can use `isi auth logs` or check the /var/log/ directory for authentication events
    Affected if Logs indicate repeated TLS negotiation failures or fallback to non-TLS connections for LDAP traffic

You are affected only if your PowerScale OneFS version is exactly 8.1.0, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, or 8.2.2 AND you have LDAP authentication configured, and the LDAP connection is using TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, or no encryption.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Apply vendor-supplied patches for Dell PowerScale OneFS 9.2.0 or later to enable proper TLSv1.2 enforcement. Clusters not using LDAP for authentication are unaffected and require no action.

Fix this in Emc Powerscale Onefs Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
18.0 hours of engineering $3,200
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-26197 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2020-26197 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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