CVE-2020-5369
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 8.2.2 and earlier and Dell EMC PowerScale OneFS version 9.0.0 contain a privilege escalation vulnerability. An authenticated malicious user may exploit this vulnerability by using SyncIQ to gain unauthorized access to system management files.
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 confidenceThis is a privilege escalation vulnerability in Dell EMC Isilon OneFS (versions 8.2.2 and earlier) and PowerScale OneFS (version 9.0.0). An authenticated user can exploit the SyncIQ replication feature to gain unauthorized access to system management files, allowing them to escalate privileges beyond their assigned role.
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= 8.2.2= 9.0.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/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.
-
Determine the installed OneFS versionRun 'isi version' or check the OneFS web管理界面 under Cluster > Hardware > About to identify the exact OneFS build and version number.Affected if The version is 8.2.2 or earlier for Isilon OneFS, or exactly 9.0.0 for PowerScale OneFS.
-
Verify if SyncIQ replication is configuredCheck the SyncIQ settings through the OneFS web管理界面 under Data Protection > SyncIQ, or run 'isi sync jobs list' to see if any SyncIQ policies exist.Affected if SyncIQ replication policies are actively configured or have been recently used on the cluster.
-
Review SyncIQ policy permissionsExamine the SyncIQ policy configuration to identify which users or roles have permission to create or modify SyncIQ jobs, typically found in the SyncIQ policy settings page.Affected if Non-administrator users have been granted SyncIQ job creation or modification permissions.
-
Audit access to system management filesReview OneFS audit logs or run 'isi audit' commands to examine file access records, particularly looking for access to /ifs/system directory or similar system management locations.Affected if Standard users have accessed system management directories or configuration files outside their normal authorization scope.
A user is affected if their OneFS version matches 8.2.2 or earlier (Isilon) or 9.0.0 (PowerScale), SyncIQ replication is enabled, and unauthorized access to system management files has occurred.
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 the vendor-supplied patch or upgrade to a non-vulnerable OneFS version. If immediate patching is not possible, restrict SyncIQ permissions and monitor for unauthorized access to system management files.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $7,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-5369 — 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-2020-5369 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