A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM i800, RUGGEDCOM i800NC, RUGGEDCOM i801, RUGGEDCOM i801NC, RUGGEDCOM i802, RUGGEDCOM i802NC, RUGGEDCOM i803, RUGGEDCOM i803NC, RUGGEDCOM M2100, RUGGEDCOM M2100F, RUGGEDCOM M2100NC, RUGGEDCOM M2200, RUGGEDCOM M2200F, RUGGEDCOM M2200NC, RUGGEDCOM M969, RUGGEDCOM M969F, RUGGEDCOM M969NC, RUGGEDCOM RMC30, RUGGEDCOM RMC30NC, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RP110, RUGGEDCOM RP110NC, RUGGEDCOM RS1600, RUGGEDCOM RS1600F, RUGGEDCOM RS1600FNC, RUGGEDCOM RS1600NC, RUGGEDCOM RS1600T, RUGGEDCOM RS1600TNC, RUGGEDCOM RS400, RUGGEDCOM RS400F, RUGGEDCOM RS400NC, RUGGEDCOM RS401, RUGGEDCOM RS401NC, RUGGEDCOM RS416, RUGGEDCOM RS416F, RUGGEDCOM RS416NC, RUGGEDCOM RS416NCv2 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416NCv2 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416P, RUGGEDCOM RS416PF, RUGGEDCOM RS416PNC, RUGGEDCOM RS416PNCv2 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416PNCv2 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416Pv2 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416Pv2 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416v2 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416v2 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS8000, RUGGEDCOM RS8000A, RUGGEDCOM RS8000ANC, RUGGEDCOM RS8000H, RUGGEDCOM RS8000HNC, RUGGEDCOM RS8000NC, RUGGEDCOM RS8000T, RUGGEDCOM RS8000TNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900, RUGGEDCOM RS900 (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900 (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900F, RUGGEDCOM RS900G, RUGGEDCOM RS900G (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900G (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900GF, RUGGEDCOM RS900GNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900GNC(32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900GNC(32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900GP, RUGGEDCOM RS900GPF, RUGGEDCOM RS900GPNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900L, RUGGEDCOM RS900LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-GETS-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-GETS-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-STND-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-STND-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-GETS-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-GETS-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-STND-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-STND-XX-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900NC, RUGGEDCOM RS900NC(32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900NC(32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900W, RUGGEDCOM RS910, RUGGEDCOM RS910L, RUGGEDCOM RS910LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS910NC, RUGGEDCOM RS910W, RUGGEDCOM RS920L, RUGGEDCOM RS920LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS920W, RUGGEDCOM RS930L, RUGGEDCOM RS930LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS930W, RUGGEDCOM RS940G, RUGGEDCOM RS940GF, RUGGEDCOM RS940GNC, RUGGEDCOM RS969, RUGGEDCOM RS969NC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100NC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100NC(32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100NC(32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100P, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100PF, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100PNC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200NC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300P V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300P V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300PF, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300PNC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300PNC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG907R, RUGGEDCOM RSG908C, RUGGEDCOM RSG909R, RUGGEDCOM RSG910C, RUGGEDCOM RSG920P V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG920P V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG920PNC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG920PNC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSL910, RUGGEDCOM RSL910NC, RUGGEDCOM RST2228, RUGGEDCOM RST2228P, RUGGEDCOM RST916C, RUGGEDCOM RST916P. The web server of the affected devices contains a vulnerability that may lead to a denial of service condition. An attacker may cause total loss of availability of the web server, which might recover after the attack is over.
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated, in violation of the intended security policy for that actor.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ruggedcom_ros | Siemens | * | 4.3.8 (excluding) |
Code frequently has to work with limited resources, so programmers must be careful to ensure that resources are not consumed too quickly, or too easily. Without use of quotas, resource limits, or other protection mechanisms, it can be easy for an attacker to consume many resources by rapidly making many requests, or causing larger resources to be used than is needed. When too many resources are allocated, or if a single resource is too large, then it can prevent the code from working correctly, possibly leading to a denial of service.
Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
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 can be difficult to effectively institute – and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery.
Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
Use resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems.
When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users.
Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).