CVE-2026-56086
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 8.6, 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 Incorrect Authorization vulnerability. A low privileged attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to unauthorized access.
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 an Incorrect Authorization vulnerability where a low-privileged remote attacker can bypass proper authorization checks to gain unauthorized access to resources or functions that should be restricted to higher-privilege users. This is a broken access control issue in the backup storage appliance's authorization mechanism.
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, < 7.13.1.80>= 7.14.0.0, < 8.3.1.40>= 8.4.0.0, < 8.6.1.20CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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.
-
Determine Data Domain OS versionLog into the Data Domain CLI and run the command to display the system version, typically 'ddos version' or 'version'. Alternatively, access the web UI and check the system information page.Affected if The displayed version falls within these ranges: 7.7.1.0 to 7.13.1.79, 7.14.0.0 to 8.3.1.39, or 8.4.0.0 to 8.6.1.19.
-
Verify remote administrative access is enabledCheck the Data Domain network configuration for enabled management interfaces. Use 'ddos network' or 'show network' in the CLI to see enabled services. Review whether HTTP/HTTPS or SSH remote management is accessible from external networks.Affected if Remote administrative interfaces (web UI, CLI over SSH) are accessible from untrusted networks.
-
Review user accounts and privilege levelsList all user accounts on the system using 'user list' or the equivalent command in the Data Domain CLI. Identify accounts with elevated privileges versus standard or limited accounts.Affected if Multiple user accounts exist with varying privilege levels, particularly if low-privileged accounts can be created or modified.
-
Audit role-based access control configurationExamine the RBAC or user role configuration on the Data Domain. Check which roles have access to administrative functions, backup operations, or configuration settings that should be restricted to higher-privilege users.Affected if Users assigned to lower-privileged roles can access functions or resources designated for higher-privilege roles.
Your environment is affected if the Data Domain OS version matches one of the vulnerable ranges AND remote administrative access is enabled, allowing a low-privileged remote attacker to potentially bypass authorization controls.
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 · scoped7.13.1.808.3.1.408.6.1.20
Apply vendor-provided patches for affected versions (7.7.1.0-8.6, 8.6.1.0-8.6.1.10, 8.3.1.0-8.3.1.30, 7.13.1.0-7.13.1.70) once released, and restrict remote administrative access until patched. Review and audit user role assignments and permissions.
LTS2024: 7.13.1.80+; LTS2025: 8.3.1.40+; LTS2026: 8.6.1.20+
- 1. Identify the current Data Domain Operating System version using the system CLI or management interface
- 2. Determine which LTS release track the system is on (LTS2024, LTS2025, or LTS2026)
- 3. For LTS2024 systems: upgrade to version 7.13.1.80 or later
- 4. For LTS2025 systems: upgrade to version 8.3.1.40 or later
- 5. For LTS2026 systems: upgrade to version 8.6.1.20 or later
- 6. For non-LTS systems on 7.x train: upgrade to 7.13.1.80 or later
- 7. For non-LTS systems on 8.x train: upgrade to 8.6.1.20 or later
- 8. After upgrade, verify the system is running the patched version
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2026-56086 — 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-2026-56086 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