CVE-2024-0003
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 · uneditedA condition exists in FlashArray Purity whereby a malicious user could use a remote administrative service to create an account on the array allowing privileged access.
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 confidenceThis is an authentication bypass vulnerability in FlashArray Purity where an authenticated malicious user with access to the remote administrative service can create new privileged accounts on the array, effectively allowing privilege escalation and persistent access.
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>= 5.3.17, <= 5.3.21>= 6.0.7, <= 6.0.9>= 6.1.8, <= 6.1.25>= 6.2.0, <= 6.2.17>= 6.3.0, <= 6.3.14>= 6.4.0, <= 6.4.10= 6.5.0CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/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.
-
Determine Purity//fa versionUse the FlashArray management interface or API to retrieve the current Purity software version. Typically accessible via the GUI under Settings > Array > Version or via REST API call to /api/1.10/array.Affected if The installed version falls within any of these ranges: 5.3.17-5.3.21, 6.0.7-6.0.9, 6.1.8-6.1.25, 6.2.0-6.2.17, 6.3.0-6.3.14, 6.4.0-6.4.10, or is exactly 6.5.0. If the version is unknown or outside these ranges, the system may not be affected.
-
Verify remote administrative service exposureCheck network configuration to determine if the remote administrative service (typically port 443 for API/GUI or port 22 for SSH) is accessible from untrusted networks. Review firewall rules, VLAN segmentation, and access control lists.Affected if The remote administrative service is exposed to networks that contain untrusted users, increasing the likelihood that a malicious authenticated user could exploit this flaw.
-
Enumerate administrative accountsQuery the list of all user accounts with administrative or privileged roles via the Purity GUI (Settings > Users), API (GET /api/1.10 directory), or CLI (pureuser list). Compare against known authorized accounts.Affected if Unexpected or unauthorized accounts with Administrator, Storage Admin, or similar privileged roles exist that were not created by your authorized administrators.
-
Review account creation timestampsExamine account creation dates for all administrative users. In Purity, this may be visible via API (user account metadata) or by reviewing audit logs for account creation events.Affected if There are privileged accounts created recently or at unexpected times that correlate with the timeframe the vulnerability existed in your version.
Your environment is likely affected if the installed Purity version falls within the affected ranges AND the remote administrative service is accessible to untrusted users, particularly if unauthorized privileged accounts are discovered.
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 · scopedRestrict access to the remote administrative service using network segmentation and strong authentication; review existing administrative accounts for unauthorized entries; apply vendor patches when available.
Upgrade to Purity//FA 5.3.22+ (5.3.x branch), 6.0.10+ (6.0.x branch), 6.1.26+ (6.1.x branch), or 6.2.18+ (6.2.x branch)
- Identify the currently installed Purity//FA version using the Pure Storage management interface or CLI
- Determine which version branch your current installation falls into (5.3.x, 6.0.x, 6.1.x, or 6.2.x)
- For Purity 5.3.x: Upgrade to version 5.3.22 or later
- For Purity 6.0.x: Upgrade to version 6.0.10 or later
- For Purity 6.1.x: Upgrade to version 6.1.26 or later
- For Purity 6.2.x: Upgrade to version 6.2.18 or later
- Verify the upgrade was successful and the vulnerability is resolved
- Review audit logs for any suspicious account creation events that may indicate exploitation
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-2024-0003 — 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-2024-0003 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