CVE-2024-25954
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 9.5.0.x through 9.7.0.x, contain an insufficient session expiration vulnerability. A remote unauthenticated attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to denial of service.
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 contains an insufficient session expiration vulnerability where sessions do not terminate properly after timeout, allowing remote unauthenticated attackers to potentially exhaust server resources by maintaining active sessions, resulting in 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>= 9.5.0.0, < 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Check PowerScale OneFS versionRun `isi version` command on the cluster CLI or check the version displayed in the web UI footerAffected if The installed version is 9.5.0.0 through 9.5.0.7, or 9.6.1 through 9.7.0.1
-
Verify session timeout configurationAccess the OneFS web UI, navigate to Session Settings under Access > Authentication, or query the session timeout via the OneFS API endpoint `/platform/3/auth/settings`Affected if Session timeout is set but sessions persist beyond the configured timeout period
-
Inspect active session countRun `isi auth sessions list` or monitor via the OneFS web UI under Sessions to observe established connectionsAffected if Sessions remain in active state beyond the configured timeout threshold or accumulate without proper cleanup
If the OneFS version falls within 9.5.0.0-9.5.0.7 or 9.6.1-9.7.0.1 and sessions are observed lingering past their timeout, the environment is affected by this vulnerability.
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
Upgrade to a patched version of PowerScale OneFS beyond 9.7.0.x; until a patch is available, implement network-level session limits or rate limiting to mitigate resource exhaustion.
Upgrade to OneFS 9.5.0.8 (for 9.5.0.x systems) or 9.7.0.2 or later (for 9.6.1+ systems)
- 1. Identify the current PowerScale OneFS version by running 'isi version' or checking the web UI
- 2. Determine which upgrade path applies based on current version (9.5.0.x goes to 9.5.0.8; 9.6.1+ goes to 9.7.0.2 or later)
- 3. Download the appropriate OneFS upgrade ISO from Dell Support (support.dell.com)
- 4. Follow Dell OneFS upgrade procedure: create a snapshot/backup, validate cluster health with 'isi healthcheck', and run 'isi upgrade' with the new ISO
- 5. Verify the upgrade completed successfully and confirm the new version is running
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-25954 — 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-2024-25954 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