Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-35069

SQLi in Dell Powerflex Manager ≤ 4.5.5.2

Published
17 June 2026
Modified
25 June 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 5.7
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0023 14th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-35069 is a medium-severity SQL Injection (CWE-89) vulnerability in Dell Powerflex Manager. Its CVSS base score is 5.7 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 14th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-6 (Least Privilege) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Dell PowerFlex Manager, version(s) prior to 5.1.0.1, contain(s) an Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') vulnerability. A low privileged attacker with adjacent network access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Script injection.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI

T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
Why these techniques?

SQL injection (CWE-89) in a management application directly enables exploitation of the app via crafted queries, matching T1190.

Confidence: HIGH · MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise v19.0

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-44293Same vendor: Dell
CVE-2024-29169Same vendor: Dell
CVE-2023-44294Same vendor: Dell
CVE-2024-45767Same vendor: Dell
CVE-2024-29168Same vendor: Dell
CVE-2024-47483Same vendor: Dell
CVE-2023-44284Same vendor: Dell
CVE-2024-29174Same vendor: Dell
CVE-2024-22221Same vendor: Dell
CVE-2024-0890Shared CWE-89

Affected Assets

dell
powerflex manager
≤ 4.5.5.2 · 4.6.0 — 5.1.0.1

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)
  • SI-10 Information Input Validation
  • AC-6 Least Privilege
Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)
  • SI-7 Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity
Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V6.2.5

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

prevent

Directly requires validation of inputs to block specially crafted SQL elements that cause the injection described in CVE-2026-35069.

prevent

Limits the privileges available to the low-privileged adjacent-network attacker, reducing the impact of successful SQL/script injection.

detect

Requires integrity verification of software and information that can detect unauthorized script or data changes resulting from the SQL injection.

Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly target injection flaws during coding and review so largely prevent CWE-89 introduction, yet the single broad outcome leaves residual risk from incomplete neutralization techniques or missed edge cases.

PR.AT-02 partial match
prevents

Training raises developer awareness of SQLi risks and can reduce introduction likelihood (partial) but removes none of the actual coding flaw's risk by itself since technical neutralization is still required.

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

detects

The same secure-coding and static-analysis activities surface missing neutralization of SQL metacharacters before the system is accepted.

prevents

Early warnings and shared best-practice information help organizations apply the latest remediation techniques against SQL-injection vulnerabilities.

prevents

Threat-intelligence feeds that surface new SQL-injection campaigns enable rapid updates to query-construction defenses and detection signatures before exploitation occurs.

prevents

Secure-coding rules and security testing phases mandate the use of parameterized queries or equivalent escaping, preventing the construction of dynamic SQL statements from untrusted input.

prevents

Language-specific secure coding rules, peer review and SAST together prevent the construction of SQL statements from untrusted data without proper parameterization or escaping.

References