CVE-2026-86383VulnerabilityPublished 28 Oct 2026

Dell PowerProtect Data Domain, Feature Release versions 7.7.1.0 through 8.8, LTS2025 release versions 8.3.1.0 through

Source GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-86383· Medium 6.8

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium · fixed in 8.9.0.0 or later : update PowerProtect Data Domain when convenient.

Data as of 28 Oct 2026, 14:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Patch: Available – fixed in 8.9.0.0 or later, 8.6.1.30 or later, 8.3.1.50 or later

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 28 Oct 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

ghsa-458w-p5fg-2hc4

What to do

Upgrade PowerProtect Data Domain to 8.9.0.0 or later, 8.6.1.30 or later or 8.3.1.50 or later.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
DellPowerProtect Data Domain	Affected =0	Fixed in 8.9.0.0 or later 8.6.1.30 or later 8.3.1.50 or later

AI-suggested

If you cannot patch yet, restrict remote access to trusted users with high privileges and monitor for unusual activity related to path traversal attempts.

Description

Dell PowerProtect Data Domain versions 7.7.1.0 through 8.8 (Feature Release), 8.3.1.0 through 8.3.1.40 (LTS2025), and 8.6.1.0 through 8.6.1.20 (LTS2026) contain a path traversal vulnerability. This flaw allows a high privileged attacker with remote access to potentially disclose sensitive information. The vulnerability is identified as CWE-22 and has a CVSS 3.1 base score of 6.8, indicating medium severity.

Impact

Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information due to path traversal. The attacker requires high privileges and remote access. There is no indication of integrity or availability impact. The CVSS score of 6.8 reflects a medium severity impact focused on confidentiality.

Summary

An improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory (path traversal) vulnerability exists in Dell PowerProtect Data Domain across specified Feature Release and LTS versions. A remote attacker with high privileges could exploit this vulnerability to access information outside intended directories, leading to information disclosure. The vulnerability affects Feature Release versions 7.7.1.0 through 8.8, LTS2025 versions 8.3.1.0 through 8.3.1.40, and LTS2026 versions 8.6.1.0 through 8.6.1.20. There is no indication of active exploitation in the wild or available patches in the provided data.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Oct 2026, 14:30 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats