Uniformance Process History DatabaseDatabase / datastore · Honeywell

CVE-2016-2280

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.0 Published 2016-04-21
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Buffer overflow in RDISERVER in Honeywell Uniformance Process History Database (PHD) R310, R320, and R321 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (service outage) via unspecified vectors.

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 confidence

Buffer overflow vulnerability in the RDISERVER component of Honeywell Uniformance Process History Database allows remote attackers to cause denial of service. The vulnerability affects R310, R320, and R321 versions and is exploitable via unspecified vectors.

MitigationContact Honeywell for the applicable patch; in the interim, isolate the RDISERVER component via network segmentation and restrict external access to minimize attack surface.

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
Uniformance Process History DatabaseDatabase / datastore
Affected:= r310= r320= r321

CVSS 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:3.0/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify if Honeywell Uniformance Process History Database is installed
    Review installed software on the system or check program directories for Honeywell Uniformance PHD components. Look for process history database executables or services associated with Honeywell software.
    Affected if Honeywell Uniformance Process History Database software is present on the system
  2. Determine the installed version of Honeywell Uniformance Process History Database
    Check the software version through the application itself, Windows Add/Remove Programs, or version information in the software directory. Compare the version string to the affected versions R310, R320, and R321.
    Affected if The installed version is R310, R320, or R321
  3. Locate and verify the RDISERVER component
    Check for the RDISERVER executable or service within the Honeywell installation directory. This is the specific component affected by the buffer overflow vulnerability.
    Affected if The RDISERVER component exists and is running as part of the installation
  4. Assess network exposure of the RDISERVER component
    Check network configuration, firewall rules, and listening ports to determine if RDISERVER is accessible from external or untrusted network segments. Review any exposed interfaces or bindings.
    Affected if The RDISERVER component is network-accessible from external or untrusted systems

The environment is affected if Honeywell Uniformance Process History Database versions R310, R320, or R321 are installed with the RDISERVER component exposed to network access.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Contact Honeywell for the applicable patch; in the interim, isolate the RDISERVER component via network segmentation and restrict external access to minimize attack surface.

Fix this in Uniformance Process History Database Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation6.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing10.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
28.0 hours of engineering $4,860
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,776.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-2280 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2016-2280 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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