CVE-2023-22574
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 PowerScale OneFS 9.0.0.x - 9.4.0.x contain an insertion of sensitive information into log file vulnerability in platform API of IPMI module. A low-privileged user with permission to read logs on the cluster could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Information disclosure and denial of service.
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 PowerScale OneFS versions 9.0.0.x through 9.4.0.x contain a vulnerability in the IPMI module's platform API where sensitive information is being written to log files. A low-privileged user with log read permissions can exploit this to disclose sensitive information and potentially cause denial of service.
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>= 9.1.0.0, < 9.1.0.27>= 9.2.1.0, < 9.2.1.20>= 9.4.0.0, < 9.4.0.11CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 the installed PowerScale OneFS versionRun the OneFS CLI command to retrieve the current system version (e.g., `isi version` or `isi system version`)Affected if The installed version falls within any of these vulnerable ranges: 9.1.0.0 through 9.1.0.26, 9.2.1.0 through 9.2.1.19, or 9.4.0.0 through 9.4.0.10
-
Confirm the IPMI module is present and enabledAccess the hardware management interface or use system commands to check if the IPMI (Intelligent Platform Management Interface) or Baseboard Management Controller (BMC) module is configured on the arrayAffected if The IPMI/BMC module is actively running or accessible on the system, as the vulnerability exists specifically within this module's platform API
-
Locate and inspect IPMI-related log filesNavigate to the system log directory and locate logs generated by the IPMI platform API component; examine these files for sensitive information such as credentials, tokens, or authentication data that should not be presentAffected if Log files contain sensitive information (such as passwords, keys, or session tokens) that originated from IPMI module API calls, indicating the vulnerability is present
-
Verify user access to system logsCheck which users and groups have read access to the directories containing IPMI and system logs (typically under /var/log/ or OneFS-specific log locations)Affected if Low-privileged users who should not have access to sensitive data are able to read log files containing IPMI-sourced sensitive information, enabling exploitation
The system is affected if it runs a vulnerable OneFS version (9.1.0.0-9.1.0.26, 9.2.1.0-9.2.1.19, or 9.4.0.0-9.4.0.10), has the IPMI module enabled, and contains sensitive data in accessible log 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.
dbcve · scoped9.1.0.279.2.1.209.4.0.11
Apply the vendor-supplied patch or upgrade to a non-vulnerable version of Dell PowerScale OneFS. Until patched, restrict log file access to only essential personnel and monitor for unauthorized access.
Upgrade to OneFS 9.1.0.27 (for 9.1.x branches), 9.2.1.20 (for 9.2.1.x), or 9.4.0.11 (for 9.4.0.x)
- 1. Identify current PowerScale OneFS version by running 'isi version' or checking the cluster management interface
- 2. Based on current version, determine target fixed release: for 9.1.x use 9.1.0.27, for 9.2.1.x use 9.2.1.20, for 9.4.0.x use 9.4.0.11
- 3. Review Dell PowerScale OneFS upgrade guide and release notes for the target version
- 4. Create a backup of cluster configuration and verify backup integrity
- 5. If possible, test the upgrade in a non-production/staging environment first
- 6. Schedule a maintenance window as upgrades require cluster downtime
- 7. Download the upgrade ISO from Dell support portal (support.dell.com)
- 8. Initiate upgrade using 'isi upgrade' command or through the OneFS web interface
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2023-22574 — 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-2023-22574 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