CVE-2020-5371
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 version 9.0.0 contain a file permissions vulnerability. An attacker, with network or local file access, could take advantage of insufficiently applied file permissions or gain unauthorized access to 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 confidenceDell EMC Isilon OneFS and PowerScale storage systems contain a file permissions vulnerability where insufficiently applied file permissions allow attackers with network or local file access to gain unauthorized access to files they should not be able to read or modify.
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.
-
Identify installed OneFS versionRun 'isi version' or check the OneFS web interface under Cluster Management > General for the exact firmware versionAffected if Version is 8.2.2 or earlier for Isilon OneFS, or exactly 9.0.0 for PowerScale OneFS
-
Review file permission inheritance settingsUse 'isi getacls' command on sample directories to inspect Access Control Lists; check if 'mode bits' and ACLs are consistently applied across shares and exportsAffected if Permissions are inconsistently applied, allowing unintended access to files or directories that should be restricted
-
Audit NFS and SMB share configurationsRun 'isi export' and 'isi share' commands to list all exports and shares; review each share's permission settings and verify which users/groups have accessAffected if Shares expose files or directories without proper permission restrictions, or allow anonymous/guest access to sensitive data
-
Inspect file ownership and access rights on sensitive directoriesUse 'ls -la' or 'isi ls -la' on critical directories like /ifs/home, /ifs/shared, and system directories to verify ownership and permission bitsAffected if Files or directories are owned by incorrect users, or permission bits (read/write/execute) are overly permissive for the user context
-
Check for unauthorized access via group mappingsReview 'isi auth' commands and group mapping configurations to verify that user-to-group assignments are correct and do not inadvertently grant elevated accessAffected if Group memberships or mappings grant users access to files they should not be able to read or modify based on their role
You are affected if your system runs OneFS version 8.2.2 or earlier (Isilon) or exactly 9.0.0 (PowerScale), AND you have file permission or ACL misconfigurations that allow unintended access to sensitive files.
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 dataReview and remediate file permissions and ACLs on the storage system to ensure proper access controls; apply vendor patches when available.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-5371 — 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-2020-5371 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