A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC S7-400 CPU 414-3 PN/DP V7, SIMATIC S7-400 CPU 414F-3 PN/DP V7, SIMATIC S7-400 CPU 416-3 PN/DP V7, SIMATIC S7-400 CPU 416F-3 PN/DP V7, Development/Evaluation Kits for PROFINET IO: DK Standard Ethernet Controller, Development/Evaluation Kits for PROFINET IO: EK-ERTEC 200, Development/Evaluation Kits for PROFINET IO: EK-ERTEC 200P, SCALANCE X-200IRT switch family (incl. SIPLUS NET variants), SIMATIC ET 200pro IM154-8 PN/DP CPU, SIMATIC ET 200pro IM154-8F PN/DP CPU, SIMATIC ET 200pro IM154-8FX PN/DP CPU, SIMATIC ET 200S IM151-8 PN/DP CPU, SIMATIC ET 200S IM151-8F PN/DP CPU, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, 16DI, DC24V, 8xM12, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, 16DO DC24V/1,3A, 8xM12, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, 4AO U/I 4xM12, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, 8 DIO, DC24V/1,3A, 8xM12, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, 8 DO, DC24V/2A, 8xM12, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, 8AI RTD/TC 8xM12, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, 8AI; 4 U/I; 4 RTD/TC 8xM12, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, 8DI, DC24V, 4xM12, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, 8DI, DC24V, 8xM12, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, 8DO, DC24V/0,5A, 4xM12, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, 8DO, DC24V/1,3A, 4xM12, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, 8DO, DC24V/1,3A, 8xM12, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN: IO-Link Master, SIMATIC ET200M (incl. SIPLUS variants), SIMATIC ET200pro, SIMATIC ET200S (incl. SIPLUS variants), SIMATIC NET CP 1604, SIMATIC NET CP 1616, SIMATIC PN/PN Coupler (incl. SIPLUS NET variants), SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 314C-2 PN/DP, SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 315-2 PN/DP, SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 315F-2 PN/DP, SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 315T-3 PN/DP, SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 317-2 PN/DP, SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 317F-2 PN/DP, SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 317T-3 PN/DP, SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 317TF-3 PN/DP, SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 319-3 PN/DP, SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 319F-3 PN/DP, SIMATIC S7-400 CPU 412-2 PN V7, SIMATIC S7-400 PN/DP V6 and below CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants), SIMATIC WinAC RTX 2010, SIMATIC WinAC RTX F 2010, SIMOTION, SINAMICS DCM, SINAMICS DCP, SINAMICS G110M V4.7 Control Unit, SINAMICS G120 V4.7 Control Unit (incl. SIPLUS variants), SINAMICS G130 V4.7 Control Unit, SINAMICS G150 Control Unit, SINAMICS GH150 V4.7 Control Unit, SINAMICS GL150 V4.7 Control Unit, SINAMICS GM150 V4.7 Control Unit, SINAMICS S110 Control Unit, SINAMICS S120 V4.7 Control Unit and CBE20 (incl. SIPLUS variants), SINAMICS S150 Control Unit, SINAMICS SL150 V4.7 Control Unit, SINAMICS SM120 V4.7 Control Unit, SINUMERIK 828D, SINUMERIK 840D sl, SIPLUS ET 200S IM151-8 PN/DP CPU, SIPLUS ET 200S IM151-8F PN/DP CPU, SIPLUS S7-300 CPU 314C-2 PN/DP, SIPLUS S7-300 CPU 315-2 PN/DP, SIPLUS S7-300 CPU 315F-2 PN/DP, SIPLUS S7-300 CPU 317-2 PN/DP, SIPLUS S7-300 CPU 317F-2 PN/DP, SIPLUS S7-400 CPU 414-3 PN/DP V7, SIPLUS S7-400 CPU 416-3 PN/DP V7. An attacker with network access to an affected product may cause a denial of service condition by breaking the real-time synchronization (IRT) of the affected installation.
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource, thereby enabling an actor to influence the amount of resources consumed, eventually leading to the exhaustion of available resources.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cp1604_firmware | Siemens | * | 2.8 (excluding) |
Limited resources include memory, file system storage, database connection pool entries, and CPU. If an attacker can trigger the allocation of these limited resources, but the number or size of the resources is not controlled, then the attacker could cause a denial of service that consumes all available resources. This would prevent valid users from accessing the product, and it could potentially have an impact on the surrounding environment. For example, a memory exhaustion attack against an application could slow down the application as well as its host operating system. There are at least three distinct scenarios which can commonly lead to resource exhaustion:
Resource exhaustion problems are often result due to an incorrect implementation of the following situations:
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:
The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question.
The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute – and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.