An issue was discovered in 3S-Smart CODESYS V3 products. The application may utilize non-TLS based encryption, which results in user credentials being insufficiently protected during transport. All variants of the following CODESYS V3 products in all versions containing the CmpUserMgr component are affected regardless of the CPU type or operating system: CODESYS Control for BeagleBone, CODESYS Control for emPC-A/iMX6, CODESYS Control for IOT2000, CODESYS Control for Linux, CODESYS Control for PFC100, CODESYS Control for PFC200, CODESYS Control for Raspberry Pi, CODESYS Control RTE V3, CODESYS Control RTE V3 (for Beckhoff CX), CODESYS Control Win V3 (also part of the CODESYS Development System setup), CODESYS V3 Simulation Runtime (part of the CODESYS Development System), CODESYS Control V3 Runtime System Toolkit, CODESYS HMI V3.
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
---|---|---|---|
Control_for_beaglebone_sl | Codesys | 3.0 (including) | 3.5.16.0 (excluding) |
Control_for_empc-a/imx6_sl | Codesys | 3.0 (including) | 3.5.16.0 (excluding) |
Control_for_iot2000_sl | Codesys | 3.0 (including) | 3.5.16.0 (excluding) |
Control_for_linux_sl | Codesys | 3.0 (including) | 3.5.16.0 (excluding) |
Control_for_pfc100_sl | Codesys | 3.0 (including) | 3.5.16.0 (excluding) |
Control_for_pfc200_sl | Codesys | 3.0 (including) | 3.5.16.0 (excluding) |
Control_rte_sl | Codesys | 3.0 (including) | 3.5.16.0 (excluding) |
Control_win_sl | Codesys | 3.0 (including) | 3.5.16.0 (excluding) |
Development_system | Codesys | 3.0 (including) | 3.5.16.0 (excluding) |
Hmi_sl | Codesys | 3.0 (including) | 3.5.16.0 (excluding) |
Raspberry_pi | Codesys | 3.0 (including) | 3.5.16.0 (excluding) |
Runtime_toolkit | Codesys | 3.0 (including) | 3.5.16.0 (excluding) |
Cryptographic algorithms are the methods by which data is scrambled to prevent observation or influence by unauthorized actors. Insecure cryptography can be exploited to expose sensitive information, modify data in unexpected ways, spoof identities of other users or devices, or other impacts. It is very difficult to produce a secure algorithm, and even high-profile algorithms by accomplished cryptographic experts have been broken. Well-known techniques exist to break or weaken various kinds of cryptography. Accordingly, there are a small number of well-understood and heavily studied algorithms that should be used by most products. Using a non-standard or known-insecure algorithm is dangerous because a determined adversary may be able to break the algorithm and compromise whatever data has been protected. Since the state of cryptography advances so rapidly, it is common for an algorithm to be considered “unsafe” even if it was once thought to be strong. This can happen when new attacks are discovered, or if computing power increases so much that the cryptographic algorithm no longer provides the amount of protection that was originally thought. For a number of reasons, this weakness is even more challenging to manage with hardware deployment of cryptographic algorithms as opposed to software implementation. First, if a flaw is discovered with hardware-implemented cryptography, the flaw cannot be fixed in most cases without a recall of the product, because hardware is not easily replaceable like software. Second, because the hardware product is expected to work for years, the adversary’s computing power will only increase over time.