CVE-2023-32495
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.x, contains a exposure of sensitive information to an unauthorized Actor vulnerability. An authorized local attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to escalation of privileges.
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-9.5.x contains a local privilege escalation vulnerability where an authorized attacker can exploit exposure of sensitive information to gain elevated privileges on the system.
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.
-
Identify the PowerScale OneFS versionRun the command `isi version` on the OneFS CLI, or log into the OneFS web UI and navigate to Cluster Management > Overview to view the firmware versionAffected if The installed version falls within 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 version is in the affected rangeCompare the version number obtained from the previous step against the vulnerable ranges: 9.2.1.0-9.2.1.22, 9.4.0.0-9.4.0.13, and 9.5.0.0-9.5.0.3Affected if The version matches any of the three vulnerable ranges listed
-
Confirm this is a local privilege escalationThis vulnerability requires an authorized local user with existing authentication to the system. Check whether local user accounts or external authentication (LDAP/Active Directory) is configured on the clusterAffected if Local or domain user authentication is enabled and the OneFS version is within the affected ranges
A system is affected if PowerScale OneFS is running version 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 allows local or domain user authentication.
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 for CVE-2023-32495 from Dell to remediate this vulnerability. This is a critical security update requiring prompt deployment.
- 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-2023-32495 — 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-2023-32495 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