A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC CFU DIQ, SIMATIC CFU PA, 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 ET200AL IM157-1 PN, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, AI 8xRTD/TC, M12-L, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, CM 4x IO-Link, M12-L, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, CM 8x IO-Link, M12-L, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, CM 8x IO-Link, M12-L, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, DI 16x24VDC, M12-L, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, DI 8x24VDC, M12-L, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, DIQ 16x24VDC/2A, M12-L, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, DQ 8x24VDC/0,5A, M12-L, SIMATIC ET200ecoPN, DQ 8x24VDC/2A, M12-L, SIMATIC ET200MP IM155-5 PN HF (incl. SIPLUS variants), SIMATIC ET200SP IM155-6 MF HF, SIMATIC ET200SP IM155-6 PN HA (incl. SIPLUS variants), SIMATIC ET200SP IM155-6 PN HF (incl. SIPLUS variants), SIMATIC ET200SP IM155-6 PN/2 HF (incl. SIPLUS variants), SIMATIC ET200SP IM155-6 PN/3 HF (incl. SIPLUS variants), SIMATIC PN/MF Coupler, SIMATIC PN/PN Coupler, SIMATIC S7-1500 CPU family (incl. related ET200 CPUs and SIPLUS 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 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, SIMATIC S7-400 H V6 CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants), SIMATIC S7-410 V10 CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants), SIMATIC S7-410 V8 CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants), SIMATIC TDC CP51M1, SIMATIC TDC CPU555, SIMATIC WinAC RTX 2010, SIMATIC WinAC RTX F 2010, SINAMICS DCM, SINAMICS G110M, SINAMICS G115D, SINAMICS G120 (incl. SIPLUS variants), SINAMICS G130, SINAMICS G150, SINAMICS S110, SINAMICS S120 (incl. SIPLUS variants), SINAMICS S150, SINAMICS S210, SINAMICS V90, SIPLUS ET 200S IM151-8 PN/DP CPU, SIPLUS ET 200S IM151-8F PN/DP CPU, SIPLUS HCS4200 CIM4210, SIPLUS HCS4200 CIM4210C, SIPLUS HCS4300 CIM4310, SIPLUS NET PN/PN Coupler, 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. The PROFINET (PNIO) stack, when integrated with the Interniche IP stack, improperly handles internal resources for TCP segments where the minimum TCP-Header length is less than defined.
This could allow an attacker to create a denial of service condition for TCP services on affected devices by sending specially crafted TCP segments.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simatic_cfu_diq_firmware | Siemens | * | * |
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.