CVE-2026-22279
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 prior 9.13.0.0, contains an insufficient logging vulnerability. An unauthenticated attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to 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 prior to 9.13.0.0 contain insufficient logging that fails to adequately record security-relevant events. An unauthenticated attacker with remote network access could exploit this weakness to perform actions that go undetected, as the system lacks proper audit trail documentation, potentially allowing information tampering without leaving sufficient forensic evidence.
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< 9.13.0.0CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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.
-
Identify PowerScale OneFS versionRun the command 'isi version' or check the OneFS web UI dashboard for the current firmware versionAffected if The reported version is any release prior to 9.13.0.0
-
Confirm remote access exposureReview network accessibility of the OneFS management interfaces (SSH, web UI, API) from untrusted networksAffected if The management interfaces are exposed to networks where unauthenticated attackers could connect remotely
-
Verify audit logging statusCheck the OneFS audit configuration via 'isi audit' command or through the Security > Audit Logging section in the web UIAffected if Audit logging is disabled or not fully configured to capture administrative actions and security events
The environment is affected if OneFS version is below 9.13.0.0 and remote unauthenticated access to the system is possible, combined with any gaps in audit logging configuration.
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 · scoped9.13.0.0
Upgrade Dell PowerScale OneFS to version 9.13.0.0 or later to obtain the patched logging mechanisms. Prior to upgrade, document current logging configurations and establish a maintenance window with verified backups.
9.13.0.0 or later
- Identify current PowerScale OneFS version using 'isi version' or through the web interface
- Schedule a maintenance window for the upgrade process
- Upgrade PowerScale OneFS to version 9.13.0.0 or later using the Dell upgrade process (refer to Dell PowerScale OneFS upgrade documentation for your specific environment)
- After upgrade, verify the new version is running using 'isi version'
- Confirm the logging vulnerability is addressed by reviewing OneFS release notes for version 9.13.0.0
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,528.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-22279 — 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-2026-22279 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