CVE-2023-32492
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 9.5.0.x contains an incorrect default permissions vulnerability. A low-privileged local attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to information disclosure or allowing to modify 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 PowerScale OneFS 9.5.0.x ships with incorrect default file and directory permissions, allowing a low-privileged local user to access sensitive files or modify content they should not have permission to read or alter.
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
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
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 installed PowerScale OneFS versionRun 'isi version' or check the OneFS web interface under Cluster Management > General to find the exact version numberAffected if 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
-
Audit default directory permissions on system directoriesUse 'isi getfacl' or standard ls -la commands on /ifs, /var, /opt and other default system directories to inspect owner, group, and world permissionsAffected if Any default system directories show world-readable or world-writable permissions (o+rwx or o+w) that should be restricted to root or specific privileged groups
-
Audit sensitive configuration file permissionsLocate and inspect permissions on configuration files in /etc, /ifs/etc, or cluster-wide config directories using 'isi getfacl' or 'ls -la'Affected if Configuration files containing authentication, authorization, or cluster secrets are readable or writable by non-privileged users
-
Verify access control on restricted data directoriesAttempt to list or read directories that should be restricted (such as audit logs, security configs, or administrative scripts) using a low-privilege test accountAffected if A low-privileged local user can successfully read or modify content in directories that should be protected by default permissions
If the installed OneFS version is within the affected ranges AND default system directories or sensitive files are found to have overly permissive (world-readable/writable) permissions, the environment is vulnerable to CVE-2023-32492.
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 vendor-provided patches or security updates for PowerScale OneFS to correct the default permissions. If no patch available, manually audit and remediate file system permissions according to Dell's hardening guidance.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,816.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-32492 — 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-2023-32492 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