CVE-2016-8673
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 · uneditedA vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC CP 343-1 Advanced (incl. SIPLUS NET variant) (All versions < V3.0.53), SIMATIC CP 443-1 Advanced (incl. SIPLUS NET variant) (All versions < V3.2.17), SIMATIC S7-300 PN/DP CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions), SIMATIC S7-400 PN/DP CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions). The integrated web server at port 80/TCP or port 443/TCP of the affected devices could allow remote attackers to perform actions with the permissions of an authenticated user, provided the targeted user has an active session and is induced to trigger the malicious request.
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 confidenceThe integrated web servers in SIMATIC CP 343-1 Advanced, CP 443-1 Advanced, and S7-300/400 PN/DP CPU families are vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF). Attackers can perform actions with the permissions of an authenticated user by tricking them into triggering malicious requests, provided the user has an active session.
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 dataall 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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.
-
Verify the device model and firmware versionAccess the device via SIMATIC Manager or TIA Portal and retrieve the firmware version from the device properties. For CP 343-1 Advanced, check the firmware version in the device configuration under 'Properties > General > Version'. For CP 443-1 Advanced and S7-300/400 CPUs, use the device info dialog or online diagnostics to query the firmware version.Affected if The device is a CP 343-1 Advanced, CP 443-1 Advanced, S7-300 CPU, or S7-400 CPU with any firmware version - all versions are affected per the CVE.
-
Confirm the integrated web server is enabledIn TIA Portal or SIMATIC Manager, open the device configuration and navigate to 'Web server' settings under the device properties. Check if the web server functionality is activated. For S7-300/400 CPUs, verify under 'Properties > Web server > General'.Affected if The web server is enabled - this is required for the CSRF vulnerability to be exploitable.
-
Determine web server network accessibilityAttempt to access the device's web interface by entering the device IP address in a web browser over HTTP/HTTPS ports (typically 80/443 or 8080/443). Check if a login prompt or web server page is returned.Affected if The web server is reachable over the network - this indicates the attack surface is exposed.
-
Verify if users have active web server sessionsReview the device or network logs for recent web server access and authenticated sessions. Check if user accounts with web server access privileges have logged in recently.Affected if Users have active or recent authenticated sessions to the web server - the CSRF attack requires a user with an active session to be tricked.
A user is affected if they operate any of the listed device models (CP 343-1 Advanced, CP 443-1 Advanced, S7-300, S7-400) with the integrated web server enabled and users have authenticated web server sessions.
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 CP 343-1 Advanced to V3.0.53+ and CP 443-1 Advanced to V3.2.17+; for S7-300/400 families lacking patches, restrict web server access via network segmentation/firewall and implement CSRF protections.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,680.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-8673 — 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-2016-8673 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