CVE-2012-6441
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 · uneditedAn information exposure of confidential information results when the device receives a specially crafted CIP packet to Port 2222/TCP, Port 2222/UDP, Port 44818/TCP, or Port 44818/UDP. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could cause loss of confidentiality. 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 · moderate confidenceThis is an information disclosure vulnerability in Rockwell Automation EtherNet/IP devices where specially crafted CIP (Common Industrial Protocol) packets sent to ports 2222/TCP, 2222/UDP, 44818/TCP, or 44818/UDP can cause the device to expose confidential information. Successful exploitation results in loss of confidentiality but does not provide code execution or denial of service capabilities.
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
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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 device model and firmware versionAccess the controller or communication module through RSLogix/Studio 5000 or the web interface (for Eweb modules) and locate the firmware version in the device properties. For 1756-ENBT, 1756-EWEB, 1768-ENBT, 1768-EWEB modules, check the module properties in the I/O configuration tree.Affected if The firmware version matches or is below the affected version ranges (Controllogix <=20, Guardlogix <=20, Micrologix <=1100 or <=1400, Softlogix <=19, or any version of 1756-ENBT, 1756-EWEB, 1768-ENBT, 1768-EWEB).
-
Verify EtherNet/IP ports are accessibleFrom a management station on the same network segment, use a port scanner (such as nmap) to test TCP and UDP connectivity to ports 2222 and 44818 on the target device IP address. Run: nmap -p 2222,44818 -sT -sU <target_ip>Affected if Either port 2222 or 44818 (TCP or UDP) responds with open or filtered status, indicating EtherNet/IP communication is enabled and reachable.
-
Check network segmentation for EtherNet/IP portsReview firewall rules, VLAN configurations, or network ACLs that govern access to the device. Determine whether ports 2222 and 44818 are exposed to unauthorized network segments or hosts beyond the control system engineering workstation subnet.Affected if Ports 2222 or 44818 are accessible from network segments other than authorized management/engineering stations, creating an exposure path for crafted CIP packets.
A device is affected if it is one of the listed Rockwell Automation products within the specified version ranges AND has EtherNet/IP ports 2222 or 44818 exposed to untrusted network access.
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 dataImplement network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict access to ports 2222 and 44818, allowing only authorized management stations to communicate with these devices. If available from Rockwell, apply vendor patches for affected firmware versions.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-6441 — 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-2012-6441 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