CVE-2023-32487
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, 8.2.x - 9.5.0.x, contains an elevation of privilege vulnerability. A low privileged local attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to denial of service, code execution and information disclosure.
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 PowerScale OneFS versions 8.2.x through 9.5.0.x contain a local privilege escalation vulnerability that allows a low-privileged local attacker to gain elevated privileges, potentially leading to code execution, denial of service, or information disclosure.
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>= 9.2.1.0, <= 9.2.1.22>= 9.4.0.0, <= 9.4.0.13>= 9.5.0.0, <= 9.5.0.3CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/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.
-
Check PowerScale OneFS versionRun the command `isi version` or `isi_status` on the OneFS CLI to retrieve the installed OneFS version numberAffected if The version falls within these ranges: 9.2.1.0 through 9.2.1.22, 9.4.0.0 through 9.4.0.13, or 9.5.0.0 through 9.5.0.3
-
Verify the full version stringRun `isi version -d` or check /var/emc/isi_version to get the complete version build string and confirm the exact minor versionAffected if The version output shows any build within the affected ranges listed above
-
Confirm local user access existsCheck if non-administrator local user accounts exist on the system using `isi auth users list` or by reviewing local authentication configurationAffected if There are any non-root local user accounts configured on the OneFS cluster
-
Identify privilege level of standard usersReview user privileges by running `isi auth users view <username>` for standard users to confirm they have low-privileged roles (such as roles below Administrator or Cluster Admin)Affected if Standard local users with limited roles exist on the system and the OneFS version is within the affected ranges
-
Check for recent privilege escalation indicatorsReview system audit logs in /var/log/audit/ or use `isi audit` commands to look for unexpected privilege changes or new administrative sessionsAffected if Audit logs show unexpected role changes or privilege escalation events that correlate with local user activity
A user is affected if their PowerScale OneFS version falls within 9.2.1.0-9.2.1.22, 9.4.0.0-9.4.0.13, or 9.5.0.0-9.5.0.3 AND they have local user accounts on the system.
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 · scopedApply the vendor-supplied patch for Dell PowerScale OneFS to address the privilege escalation vulnerability. Restrict local access to trusted personnel and monitor for unauthorized privilege escalation attempts.
Upgrade to OneFS 9.2.1.23+ (for 9.2.1.x line), 9.4.0.14+ (for 9.4.0.x line), or 9.5.0.4+ (for 9.5.0.x line). Best practice is to upgrade to the latest available stable release in your supported branch.
- 1. Identify the current PowerScale OneFS version by running 'isi version' or checking the OneFS web interface under Cluster > Management > Cluster Identity.
- 2. Based on the current version, determine the minimum fixed release to upgrade to: For 9.2.1.x line, upgrade to 9.2.1.23 or later; For 9.4.0.x line, upgrade to 9.4.0.14 or later; For 9.5.0.x line, upgrade to 9.5.0.4 or later.
- 3. Review Dell PowerScale OneFS upgrade documentation and compatibility matrix at support.dell.com.
- 4. Create a complete cluster backup/snapshot before initiating the upgrade.
- 5. Plan for a maintenance window as the upgrade will require cluster downtime.
- 6. Download the appropriate OneFS iso/image from Dell support portal for the target fixed version.
- 7. Initiate the upgrade using 'isi upgrade' command or OneFS web interface under Platform > Upgrade.
- 8. Monitor the upgrade process and verify cluster health post-upgrade using 'isi status' and 'isi health'.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2023-32487 — 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-2023-32487 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