CVE-2025-24812

A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1211C AC/DC/Rly (6ES7211-1BE40-0XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1211C DC/DC/DC (6ES7211-1AE40-0XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1211C DC/DC/Rly (6ES7211-1HE40-0XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1212C AC/DC/Rly (6ES7212-1BE40-0XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1212C DC/DC/DC (6ES7212-1AE40-0XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1212C DC/DC/Rly (6ES7212-1HE40-0XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1212FC DC/DC/DC (6ES7212-1AF40-0XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1212FC DC/DC/Rly (6ES7212-1HF40-0XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1214C AC/DC/Rly (6ES7214-1BG40-0XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1214C DC/DC/DC (6ES7214-1AG40-0XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1214C DC/DC/Rly (6ES7214-1HG40-0XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1214FC DC/DC/DC (6ES7214-1AF40-0XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1214FC DC/DC/Rly (6ES7214-1HF40-0XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1215C AC/DC/Rly (6ES7215-1BG40-0XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1215C DC/DC/DC (6ES7215-1AG40-0XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1215C DC/DC/Rly (6ES7215-1HG40-0XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1215FC DC/DC/DC (6ES7215-1AF40-0XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1215FC DC/DC/Rly (6ES7215-1HF40-0XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1217C DC/DC/DC (6ES7217-1AG40-0XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1212 AC/DC/RLY (6AG1212-1BE40-2XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1212 AC/DC/RLY (6AG1212-1BE40-4XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1212 DC/DC/RLY (6AG1212-1HE40-2XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1212 DC/DC/RLY (6AG1212-1HE40-4XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1212C DC/DC/DC (6AG1212-1AE40-2XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1212C DC/DC/DC (6AG1212-1AE40-4XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1212C DC/DC/DC RAIL (6AG2212-1AE40-1XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214 AC/DC/RLY (6AG1214-1BG40-2XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214 AC/DC/RLY (6AG1214-1BG40-4XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214 AC/DC/RLY (6AG1214-1BG40-5XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214 DC/DC/DC (6AG1214-1AG40-2XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214 DC/DC/DC (6AG1214-1AG40-4XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214 DC/DC/DC (6AG1214-1AG40-5XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214 DC/DC/RLY (6AG1214-1HG40-2XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214 DC/DC/RLY (6AG1214-1HG40-4XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214 DC/DC/RLY (6AG1214-1HG40-5XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214C DC/DC/DC RAIL (6AG2214-1AG40-1XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214FC DC/DC/DC (6AG1214-1AF40-5XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214FC DC/DC/RLY (6AG1214-1HF40-5XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215 AC/DC/RLY (6AG1215-1BG40-2XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215 AC/DC/RLY (6AG1215-1BG40-4XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215 AC/DC/RLY (6AG1215-1BG40-5XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215 DC/DC/DC (6AG1215-1AG40-2XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215 DC/DC/DC (6AG1215-1AG40-4XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215 DC/DC/RLY (6AG1215-1HG40-2XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215 DC/DC/RLY (6AG1215-1HG40-4XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215 DC/DC/RLY (6AG1215-1HG40-5XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215C DC/DC/DC (6AG1215-1AG40-5XB0) (All versions < V4.7), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215FC DC/DC/DC (6AG1215-1AF40-5XB0) (All versions < V4.7). Affected devices do not process correctly certain special crafted packets sent to port 102/tcp, which could allow an attacker to cause a denial of service in the device.

Weakness

The product receives input that is expected to be well-formed - i.e., to comply with a certain syntax - but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input complies with the syntax.

Extended Description

Often, complex inputs are expected to follow a particular syntax, which is either assumed by the input itself, or declared within metadata such as headers. The syntax could be for data exchange formats, markup languages, or even programming languages. When untrusted input is not properly validated for the expected syntax, attackers could cause parsing failures, trigger unexpected errors, or expose latent vulnerabilities that might not be directly exploitable if the input had conformed to the syntax.

Potential Mitigations

• 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.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/66.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/676.html

References

• https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-224824.html