CVE-2015-5628
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 · uneditedStack-based buffer overflow in Yokogawa CENTUM CS 1000 R3.08.70 and earlier, CENTUM CS 3000 R3.09.50 and earlier, CENTUM CS 3000 Entry R3.09.50 and earlier, CENTUM VP R5.04.20 and earlier, CENTUM VP Entry R5.04.20 and earlier, ProSafe-RS R3.02.10 and earlier, Exaopc R3.72.00 and earlier, Exaquantum R2.85.00 and earlier, Exaquantum/Batch R2.50.30 and earlier, Exapilot R3.96.10 and earlier, Exaplog R3.40.00 and earlier, Exasmoc R4.03.20 and earlier, Exarqe R4.03.20 and earlier, Field Wireless Device OPC Server R2.01.02 and earlier, PRM R3.12.00 and earlier, STARDOM VDS R7.30.01 and earlier, STARDOM OPC Server for Windows R3.40 and earlier, FAST/TOOLS R10.01 and earlier, B/M9000CS R5.05.01 and earlier, B/M9000 VP R7.03.04 and earlier, and FieldMate R1.01 or R1.02 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted packet.
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 confidenceStack-based buffer overflow in Yokogawa CENTUM and related ICS software allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted network packets. The vulnerability stems from improper bounds checking when processing incoming network data, enabling overflow of stack memory and code execution.
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<= r3.08.70<= r3.09.50<= r3.09.50<= r5.04.20<= r5.04.20<= r3.02.10<= r3.72.00<= r3.96.10CVSS 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:3.1/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 installed Yokogawa productsReview system inventory or check Program Files/Program Files (x86) for Yokogawa CENTUM, Prosafe RS, Exaopc, or Exapilot installations. Check Windows Services or running processes for Yokogawa-related services.Affected if Any of the eight affected products (Centum Cs 1000, Centum Cs 3000, Centum Cs 3000 Entry, Centum Vp, Centum Vp Entry, Prosafe RS, Exaopc, Exapilot) are present
-
Determine firmware or software versionAccess the product's About dialog, check the version info in the Windows registry under HKLM\SOFTWARE\Yokogawa\ or inspect the executable file properties of the main application binary.Affected if Version is at or below the vulnerable threshold: r3.08.70 for Cs 1000, r3.09.50 for Cs 3000/Entry, r5.04.20 for Vp/Entry, r3.02.10 for Prosafe RS, r3.72.00 for Exaopc, or r3.96.10 for Exapilot
-
Verify network exposure of ICS softwareCheck firewall rules and network configuration to determine if the Yokogawa product's network ports (typically OPC, proprietary ICS protocols) are accessible from outside the trusted network segment.Affected if The product listens on network ports and those ports are reachable from untrusted networks or the internet
-
Confirm network services are enabledReview Windows Services or the product's configuration to verify that network communication modules (OPC server, data exchange services) are running and accepting connections.Affected if Network communication services are active and listening for incoming connections
If a vulnerable Yokogawa product version is installed AND network services are enabled AND the system is network-accessible, the environment is likely affected by this 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 patches to upgrade affected software beyond the vulnerable version numbers; until patched, isolate affected systems via network segmentation and restrict external access.
- Consultation16.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $18,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-5628 — 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-2015-5628 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