CVE-2026-46465
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 PowerProtect Data Domain, versions 7.7.1.0 through 8.7, LTS2026 release version 8.6.1.0 through 8.6.1.10, LTS2025 release version 8.3.1.0 through 8.3.1.30, LTS2024 release versions 7.13.1.0 through 7.13.1.70 contain an use of externally-controlled format string vulnerability. A high privileged attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Information disclosure and 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 PowerProtect Data Domain contains a format string vulnerability where user-controlled input is used as a format string in printf-style functions without proper sanitization. A high-privileged authenticated attacker with remote access can exploit this to read memory contents (information disclosure) or crash the service (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>= 7.7.1.0, <= 7.13.1.70>= 8.0.0.0, <= 8.3.1.30>= 8.4.0.0, <= 8.7.0.0CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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.
-
Confirm Dell Data Domain systemIdentify if the target system is a Dell PowerProtect Data Domain appliance. Check the system hostname, firmware branding, or access the management interface to verify the product. The system runs Dell Data Domain Operating System (DDOS).Affected if System is not a Dell Data Domain or PowerProtect appliance - not affected by this CVE.
-
Retrieve installed DDOS versionLog into the Data Domain management CLI (via console, SSH, or GUI) and run the command 'version' or 'system show version' to display the installed Data Domain Operating System version. Alternatively, check the GUI System > Overview page for the OS version.Affected if Unable to determine the DDOS version - cannot assess vulnerability status.
-
Compare version against affected rangesCompare the installed DDOS version number to the affected ranges: 7.7.1.0 through 7.13.1.70, 8.0.0.0 through 8.3.1.30, or 8.4.0.0 through 8.7.0.0. Note that versions outside these ranges or between these ranges (e.g., 7.14.x, 8.8.x) are not listed as affected.Affected if Installed version falls within 7.7.1.0-7.13.1.70, 8.0.0.0-8.3.1.30, or 8.4.0.0-8.7.0.0 - potentially affected.
-
Check for remote management accessReview whether the Data Domain management interfaces (CLI/SSH, GUI, or API) are exposed to the network. Verify access controls, firewall rules, and authentication settings for remote administrative access. The vulnerability requires a high-privileged authenticated attacker with remote access.Affected if Remote management interfaces are disabled or restricted to trusted networks - the attack surface is reduced but the code flaw may still exist in the affected version.
-
Verify privileged user accessAudit accounts with administrative or privileged access to the Data Domain system. The vulnerability requires a high-privileged authenticated attacker. Review user accounts, LDAP/AD integration, and admin role assignments.Affected if No high-privileged accounts exist or all privileged access is properly secured - unlikely to be exploitable even with the vulnerable version present.
The system is affected if it is a Dell Data Domain/PowerProtect appliance running DDOS version 7.7.1.0-7.13.1.70, 8.0.0.0-8.3.1.30, or 8.4.0.0-8.7.0.0 and has remote management access enabled for authenticated users.
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 dataApply vendor-provided patches for the affected versions (7.7.1.0-8.7, LTS2024-LTS2026 releases). If no patch available, audit code for format string functions using untrusted input and replace with secure alternatives (e.g., printf("%s", user_input) instead of printf(user_input)).
- Consultation4.0 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 $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-46465 — 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-2026-46465 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