CVE-2024-25953
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 versions 9.4.0.x through 9.7.0.x contains an UNIX symbolic link (symlink) following vulnerability. A local high privileged attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to denial of service, information tampering.
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 9.4.0.x through 9.7.0.x contains a symlink following vulnerability where the system improperly follows symbolic links without adequate validation. A local high-privileged attacker could exploit this to cause denial of service through file overwrite/denial, or manipulate information by redirecting file operations to unintended locations.
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>= 9.4.0, <= 9.4.0.16>= 9.5.0.0, < 9.5.0.8>= 9.6.1, < 9.7.0.2CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 installed PowerScale OneFS versionRun 'isi version' or 'isi status' command to retrieve the OneFS version numberAffected if The version falls within 9.4.0.0-9.4.0.16, 9.5.0.0-9.5.0.7, or 9.6.1.0-9.7.0.1
-
Check for high-privileged local usersReview local user accounts with elevated privileges using 'isi auth' commands or check /var/db/root directory for unauthorized privileged accountsAffected if Untrusted or unauthorized users have been granted high-privileged access to the system
-
Audit filesystem for suspicious symlinksUse 'find / -type l -ls' to list all symbolic links on the system, particularly in /ifs and config directoriesAffected if Symbolic links are found pointing to sensitive system files or directories outside expected paths
-
Review symlink creation timestampsCheck creation times of recent symlinks using 'ls -laR /ifs' focusing on unusual recent modificationsAffected if Multiple symlinks were created recently in system directories by privileged users
-
Inspect audit logs for symlink-related file operationsReview OneFS audit logs (isi audit) for file operations that may have followed symlinks to unintended locationsAffected if Logs show file operations unexpectedly targeting files outside the intended directory scope
A system is affected if it runs PowerScale OneFS version 9.4.0.0-9.4.0.16, 9.5.0.0-9.5.0.7, or 9.6.1.0-9.7.0.1 and has untrusted high-privileged local users or suspicious symlink activity present.
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 · scoped9.5.0.89.7.0.2
Apply the vendor patch for CVE-2024-25953 when available. Until then, restrict local privileged access and monitor file system operations for suspicious symlink creation patterns.
OneFS 9.7.0.2 or later (or 9.5.0.8+ for respective branches)
- Review the current PowerScale OneFS version using 'isi version' or through the web admin console
- Determine the current major version line (9.4.0.x, 9.5.0.x, or 9.6.1+/9.7.0.x)
- For versions 9.4.0 through 9.4.0.16: upgrade to OneFS 9.5.0.8 or later, or 9.7.0.2 or later
- For versions 9.5.0.0 through 9.5.0.7: upgrade to OneFS 9.5.0.8 or later
- For versions 9.6.1 through 9.7.0.1: upgrade to OneFS 9.7.0.2 or later
- Download the upgrade ISO from Dell support portal (support.dell.com)
- Follow standard OneFS upgrade procedure: run 'isi upgrade' or use SmartUpgrade via the web interface
- Verify the upgrade completed successfully with 'isi version'
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-25953 — 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-2024-25953 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