CVE-2024-25963
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 8.2.2.x through 9.5.0.x contains a use of a broken cryptographic algorithm vulnerability. A remote unauthenticated attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to information disclosure.
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 8.2.2.x through 9.5.0.x uses a broken cryptographic algorithm, allowing remote unauthenticated attackers to potentially exploit this to disclose sensitive information.
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>= 8.2.2.0, <= 9.3.0>= 9.4.0, <= 9.4.0.16>= 9.5.0.0, < 9.5.0.8>= 9.6.1, <= 9.7.0.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Confirm PowerScale OneFS is installedRun the command 'isi version' or check the system banner via SSH to identify the OneFS versionAffected if The system is running Dell PowerScale OneFS and the version falls within the affected ranges
-
Extract the exact OneFS version numberExecute 'isi version' or check '/var/packages/isi_nfs/VERSION' if accessible. Note the full version string (e.g., 9.5.0.0)Affected if The version cannot be determined or is not visible
-
Compare installed version against affected rangesCheck if your version matches: 8.2.2.0 through 9.3.0; OR 9.4.0 through 9.4.0.16; OR 9.5.0.0 through 9.5.0.7; OR 9.6.1 through 9.7.0.0Affected if Your installed version falls within any of these ranges
-
Identify if the broken cryptographic algorithm is in useReview the OneFS configuration for SSL/TLS or certificate settings. Check via 'isi auth' or web UI under Access > Authentication > SSL/TLS settingsAffected if A weak or broken cryptographic algorithm (such as SSLv2, SSLv3, or known-weak ciphers) is enabled in the OneFS SSL/TLS configuration
You are affected if PowerScale OneFS is running a version within 8.2.2.0-9.3.0, 9.4.0-9.4.0.16, 9.5.0.0-9.5.0.7, or 9.6.1-9.7.0.0 AND weak cryptographic settings are enabled.
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 data9.5.0.8
Apply the vendor patch or upgrade to a patched version of PowerScale OneFS. Review Dell's security advisory for specific cryptographic algorithm details and remediation steps.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $7,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-25963 — 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-2024-25963 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