A vulnerability has been identified in SIPROTEC 5 6MD84 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 6MD85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 6MD85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 6MD86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 6MD86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 6MD89 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MU85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7KE85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7KE85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7SA82 (CP100) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7SA84 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7SA87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7SD82 (CP100) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7SD84 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7SD87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ81 (CP100) (All versions < V8.89), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ81 (CP150) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.89), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7SK82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.89), SIPROTEC 5 7SK82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7SK85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SK85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7SL82 (CP100) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SL82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7SL86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SL86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7SL87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SL87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7SS85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SS85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7ST85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7ST85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7ST86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7SX82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7SX85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7UM85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7UT82 (CP100) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7UT85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7UT86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7UT87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7VE85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7VK87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7VK87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 7VU85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BA-2EL (All versions < V8.89 installed on CP100 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BA-2EL (All versions < V9.50 installed on CP150 and CP300 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BA-2EL (All versions installed on CP200 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BB-2FO (All versions < V8.89 installed on CP100 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BB-2FO (All versions < V9.50 installed on CP150 and CP300 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BB-2FO (All versions installed on CP200 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BD-2FO (All versions < V9.50), SIPROTEC 5 Compact 7SX800 (CP050) (All versions < V9.50). Affected devices do not properly restrict secure client-initiated renegotiations within the SSL and TLS protocols. This could allow an attacker to create a denial of service condition on the ports 443/tcp and 4443/tcp for the duration of the attack.
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Siprotec_5_6md85_firmware | Siemens | - (including) | - (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.