CVE-2014-9187
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 · uneditedMultiple heap-based buffer overflow vulnerabilities exist in Honeywell Experion PKS all versions prior to R400.6, all versions prior to R410.6, and all versions prior to R430.2 modules, which could lead to possible remote code execution or denial of service. Honeywell strongly encourages and recommends all customers running unsupported versions of EKPS prior to R400 to upgrade to a supported version.
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 confidenceMultiple heap-based buffer overflow vulnerabilities exist in Honeywell Experion PKS controller modules prior to R400.6, R410.6, and R430.2 versions. These memory corruption flaws in the affected modules could allow an attacker to achieve remote code execution or cause denial of service conditions.
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>= r400, < r400.6>= r410, < r410.6>= r430, < r430.2CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 Honeywell Experion PKS installationLocate and examine system documentation, SCADA/HMI servers, or control system inventory that lists installed industrial control system software. Honeywell Experion PKS is typically deployed on Windows servers running the Experion software suite.Affected if The system is confirmed to have Honeywell Experion PKS installed
-
Determine Experion PKS versionAccess the Experion PKS server or console and retrieve the installed software version. This is typically available through the Honeywell software license manager, control system configuration tools, or the Windows Add/Remove Programs panel for Experion components.Affected if Unable to determine the version or the version cannot be retrieved from the system
-
Compare version against affected rangesCheck if the installed version falls within any of these ranges: r400.x (where x < 6), r410.x (where x < 6), or r430.x (where x < 2). Versions r400.6, r410.6, and r430.2 and later are NOT affected.Affected if Installed version is >= r400 but < r400.6, OR >= r410 but < r410.6, OR >= r430 but < r430.2
-
Identify active controller modulesReview the Experion PKS configuration to determine which controller modules (such as C200, C300, or other controller types) are actively deployed. The vulnerability affects controller modules specifically.Affected if Controller modules are in use and the Experion PKS version meets the affected version criteria in step 3
A system is affected if it runs any version of Honeywell Experion PKS prior to R400.6, R410.6, or R430.2 (depending on the release train) with active controller modules.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade Honeywell Experion PKS to a supported version (R400.6, R410.6, or R430.2 depending on the release train) as strongly recommended by the vendor; unsupported versions prior to R400 should be prioritized for immediate remediation.
R400.6, R410.6, or R430.2 (depending on which major version line you are on)
- Identify the current Experion PKS version running in your environment by checking the EKPS version through the system console or administration interface
- If running version r400.x where x < 6, upgrade to R400.6
- If running version r410.x where x < 6, upgrade to R410.6
- If running version r430.x where x < 2, upgrade to R430.2
- If running versions prior to R400, upgrade to R400.6 or later (R410.6 or R430.2)
- After upgrade, verify the EKPS version matches the target fixed release
- Test critical control system functions to ensure operational integrity post-upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing24.0 h
- Review / QA12.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $16,384.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-9187 — 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-2014-9187 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