CVE-2012-6438
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedThe device does not properly validate the data being sent to the buffer. An attacker can send a malformed CIP packet to Port 2222/TCP, Port 2222/UDP, Port 44818/TCP, or Port 44818/UDP, which creates a buffer overflow and causes the NIC to crash. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could cause loss of availability and a disruption in communications with other connected devices. Rockwell Automation EtherNet/IP products; 1756-ENBT, 1756-EWEB, 1768-ENBT, and 1768-EWEB communication modules; CompactLogix L32E and L35E controllers; 1788-ENBT FLEXLogix adapter; 1794-AENTR FLEX I/O EtherNet/IP adapter; ControlLogix 18 and earlier; CompactLogix 18 and earlier; GuardLogix 18 and earlier; SoftLogix 18 and earlier; CompactLogix controllers 19 and earlier; SoftLogix controllers 19 and earlier; ControlLogix controllers 20 and earlier; GuardLogix controllers 20 and earlier; and MicroLogix 1100 and 1400
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceA buffer overflow vulnerability exists in Rockwell Automation EtherNet/IP products due to improper validation of CIP packet data. Attackers can send malformed CIP packets to ports 2222/TCP, 2222/UDP, 44818/TCP, or 44818/UDP, triggering a buffer overflow that crashes the NIC and disrupts communications with connected devices.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 20<= 20<= 1100<= 1400<= 19all versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the Rockwell Automation product in your environmentLocate the device or software listing Controllogix, Guardlogix, Micrologix, Softlogix, 1756-ENBT, 1756-EWEB, 1768-ENBT, or 1768-EWEB components. Check device firmware version through the programming software (RSLogix 5000/Studio 5000) or device web interface.Affected if The product matches one of the affected product lines and the firmware version falls within or below the affected version ranges (Controllogix <=20, Guardlogix <=20, Micrologix <=1100 or <=1400, Softlogix <=19, or is any version of 1756-ENBT, 1756-EWEB, 1768-ENBT, 1768-EWEB).
-
Verify if EtherNet/IP ports are accessibleScan network for open ports 2222/TCP, 2222/UDP, 44818/TCP, and 44818/UDP on devices running the affected products. Use nmap or network scanning tools: nmap -p 2222,44818 -sT -sU target_ipAffected if Any of these ports are open and responding on the affected device, indicating the EtherNet/IP CIP service is running.
-
Check for signs of NIC crashes or communication disruptionsReview network logs, device event logs, and system uptime records for unexpected resets, NIC failures, or loss of communication with connected devices. Check if CIP sessions are dropping unexpectedly.Affected if The device has experienced unexplained crashes, NIC failures, or communication disruptions that align with the buffer overflow behavior described in the CVE.
-
Inspect network segmentation around affected devicesReview firewall rules, ACLs, and network segmentation policies to determine if ports 2222 and 44818 are exposed to untrusted network segments or the internet.Affected if The vulnerable ports are accessible from network segments that contain untrusted or external hosts, increasing exposure to malformed CIP packet attacks.
You are affected if a vulnerable Rockwell Automation product with exposed EtherNet/IP ports (2222 or 44818) is present in your environment and the firmware version falls within the affected ranges listed in the CVE.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataApply vendor-supplied firmware updates and patches; meanwhile, restrict network access to ports 2222 and 44818 using firewalls or network segmentation to limit exposure to untrusted hosts.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,608.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-6438 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2012-6438 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data