A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC HMI Comfort Outdoor Panels V15 7 & 15 (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions < V15.1 Update 6), SIMATIC HMI Comfort Outdoor Panels V16 7 & 15 (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions < V16 Update 4), SIMATIC HMI Comfort Panels V15 4 - 22 (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions < V15.1 Update 6), SIMATIC HMI Comfort Panels V16 4 - 22 (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions < V16 Update 4), SIMATIC HMI KTP Mobile Panels V15 KTP400F, KTP700, KTP700F, KTP900 and KTP900F (All versions < V15.1 Update 6), SIMATIC HMI KTP Mobile Panels V16 KTP400F, KTP700, KTP700F, KTP900 and KTP900F (All versions < V16 Update 4), SIMATIC WinCC Runtime Advanced V15 (All versions < V15.1 Update 6), SIMATIC WinCC Runtime Advanced V16 (All versions < V16 Update 4), SINAMICS GH150 (All versions), SINAMICS GL150 (with option X30) (All versions), SINAMICS GM150 (with option X30) (All versions), SINAMICS SH150 (All versions), SINAMICS SL150 (All versions), SINAMICS SM120 (All versions), SINAMICS SM150 (All versions), SINAMICS SM150i (All versions). A remote attacker could send specially crafted packets to SmartVNC device layout handler on client side, which could influence the amount of resources consumed and result in a Denial-of-Service (infinite loop) condition.
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simatic_wincc_runtime_advanced | Siemens | * | 16 (excluding) |
| Simatic_wincc_runtime_advanced | Siemens | 16 (including) | 16 (including) |
| Simatic_wincc_runtime_advanced | Siemens | 16-update1 (including) | 16-update1 (including) |
| Simatic_wincc_runtime_advanced | Siemens | 16-update2 (including) | 16-update2 (including) |
| Simatic_wincc_runtime_advanced | Siemens | 16-update3 (including) | 16-update3 (including) |
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.