CVE-2020-5328
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 Isilon OneFS versions prior to 8.2.0 contain an unauthorized access vulnerability due to a lack of thorough authorization checks when SyncIQ is licensed, but encrypted syncs are not marked as required. When this happens, loss of control of the cluster can occur.
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 Isilon OneFS versions before 8.2.0 have a critical authorization flaw in SyncIQ where insufficient access controls exist when SyncIQ is licensed but encrypted sync is not enforced. This allows unauthorized parties to potentially gain control of the entire cluster.
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< 8.2.0CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Verify OneFS versionRun 'isi version' or check the cluster management interface to confirm the installed OneFS versionAffected if Version is below 8.2.0
-
Confirm SyncIQ license statusCheck if SyncIQ is licensed on the cluster using 'isi sync license' or via the management UIAffected if SyncIQ is licensed and enabled on the cluster
-
Check encrypted sync enforcement settingExamine the SyncIQ configuration for the encrypted sync enforcement policy using 'isi sync settings' or the cluster management interfaceAffected if Encrypted sync is NOT enforced (policy is set to allow unencrypted sync)
-
Review SyncIQ access controlsInspect SyncIQ access control policies and remote cluster configurations to verify authorization controls are properly configuredAffected if Authorization checks are insufficient or missing for SyncIQ operations
The environment is affected if OneFS version is below 8.2.0 AND SyncIQ is licensed AND encrypted sync is not enforced, allowing potential unauthorized cluster 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.
dbcve · scoped8.2.0
Enable required encrypted syncs in SyncIQ configuration and ensure authorization checks are properly enforced to prevent unauthorized cluster access.
8.2.0
- 1. Schedule a maintenance window and back up all critical cluster data before proceeding
- 2. Download the OneFS 8.2.0 upgrade package from Dell EMC support portal (support.dell.com)
- 3. Follow Dell EMC's documented OneFS upgrade procedure: use the 'isi upgrade' command or WebUI to apply the 8.2.0 upgrade
- 4. After upgrade completes, verify the version by running 'isi version' or checking the WebUI
- 5. Post-upgrade, access SyncIQ settings and ensure encrypted syncs are marked as required to prevent unauthorized access
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,736.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-5328 — 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-2020-5328 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