CVE-2016-2201
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 · uneditedSiemens SIMATIC S7-1500 CPU devices before 1.8.3 allow remote attackers to bypass a replay protection mechanism via packets on TCP port 102.
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 confidenceThe vulnerability allows remote attackers to bypass replay protection in Siemens SIMATIC S7-1500 CPU devices by capturing and retransmitting legitimate packets sent to TCP port 102 (S7comm protocol). This enables attackers to potentially inject malicious commands by replaying previously captured authenticated communications.
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= 1.8.2CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/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.
-
Confirm device model is SIMATIC S7-1500Access the device web interface or use PLC programming software (such as TIA Portal) to identify the exact CPU model. Check the device nameplate or hardware configuration in the project.Affected if The device is not a SIMATIC S7-1500 CPU, so it is not affected by this specific CVE
-
Check firmware version 1.8.2Via the device web interface, navigate to the firmware or device information section. Alternatively, use TIA Portal to go online and read the CPU firmware version from the device properties or online diagnostics.Affected if The firmware version is exactly 1.8.2, indicating the device is affected
-
Verify S7comm protocol is enabled on TCP port 102Check device network configuration for enabled protocols. In TIA Portal, inspect the CPU properties under Protection and Security or Communication settings. Use a network scanner or port scanner to confirm TCP port 102 is open and responding to S7comm queries.Affected if S7comm protocol is enabled and TCP port 102 is accessible on the device
-
Determine network exposure of the deviceReview network architecture documentation and firewall rules to check if the device is directly accessible from untrusted networks. Document whether the device is isolated by VLANs or network segmentation.Affected if The device has direct network accessibility from untrusted networks without proper segmentation
The environment is affected only if it contains a SIMATIC S7-1500 CPU with firmware version exactly 1.8.2, with S7comm protocol enabled on TCP port 102 and accessible from the network being monitored.
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 dataUpdate SIMATIC S7-1500 CPU devices to firmware version 1.8.3 or later. Additionally, implement network segmentation and monitor TCP port 102 for suspicious packet patterns to detect replay attempts.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,544.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-2201 — 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-2016-2201 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