CVE-2024-21985
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 · uneditedONTAP 9 versions prior to 9.9.1P18, 9.10.1P16, 9.11.1P13, 9.12.1P10 and 9.13.1P4 are susceptible to a vulnerability which could allow an authenticated user with multiple remote accounts with differing roles to perform actions via REST API beyond their intended privilege. Possible actions include viewing limited configuration details and metrics or modifying limited settings, some of which could result in a Denial of Service (DoS).
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 confidenceA privilege escalation vulnerability in NetApp ONTAP allows authenticated users with multiple remote accounts (e.g., LDAP/Active Directory) possessing different roles to perform REST API actions beyond their intended privilege level, potentially viewing configuration details, modifying settings, or causing 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>= 9.0, < 9.9.1>= 9.10.0, < 9.10.1>= 9.11.0, < 9.11.1>= 9.12.0, < 9.12.1>= 9.13.0, < 9.13.1= 9.9.1= 9.10.1= 9.11.1= 9.12.1= 9.13.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/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 ONTAP versionRun 'system node show -fields version' or check the cluster version via ONTAP CLI with 'version' commandAffected if Installed version falls within: >=9.0,<9.9.1; >=9.10.0,<9.10.1; >=9.11.0,<9.11.1; >=9.12.0,<9.12.1; >=9.13.0,<9.13.1; or equals 9.9.1, 9.10.1, 9.11.1, 9.12.1, or 9.13.1
-
Verify LDAP or Active Directory authentication is configuredRun 'security login show' to list all login methods, look for 'ldap' or 'domain' authentication typesAffected if LDAP or Active Directory authentication methods are configured and active
-
Identify users with multiple remote group membershipsRun 'security login show -vserver <vserver_name>' and cross-reference with 'ldap-client show' and 'domain-name' settings; check if a single user account maps to multiple AD/LDAP groups with different rolesAffected if A single authenticated user account maps to two or more remote groups that grant different privilege roles
-
Review role assignments for remote accountsRun 'security login role show' combined with 'security login domain-membership show' to enumerate which roles each remote group assignment providesAffected if Users possess role assignments derived from multiple remote group memberships with conflicting or elevated privilege levels
You are affected if running an affected ONTAP version AND you have LDAP/AD authentication configured where a single user account can inherit multiple roles with different privilege levels.
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 · scoped9.9.19.10.19.11.1
Upgrade to patched ONTAP versions (9.9.1P18, 9.10.1P16, 9.11.1P13, 9.12.1P10, 9.13.1P4 or later). Review user role assignments for accounts with multiple remote group memberships.
Upgrade to 9.9.1P18, 9.10.1P16, 9.11.1P13, 9.12.1P10, or 9.13.1P4 depending on current branch
- 1. Identify current ONTAP version by running: version
- 2. Determine the appropriate patch version to upgrade to based on current release branch: for 9.12.x go to 9.12.1P10, for 9.11.x go to 9.11.1P13, for 9.10.x go to 9.10.1P16, for 9.9.x go to 9.9.1P18
- 3. Download the appropriate patch file from the NetApp Support Site (login required)
- 4. Upload the patch to the ONTAP cluster: software install -package <patch_file>
- 5. Verify the software install completed successfully: software get
- 6. Confirm the version shows the patched release: version
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 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 $7,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-21985 — 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-2024-21985 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