CVE-2016-9154
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 Desigo PX Web modules PXA40-W0, PXA40-W1, PXA40-W2 for Desigo PX automation controllers PXC00-E.D, PXC50-E.D, PXC100-E.D, PXC200-E.D (All firmware versions < V6.00.046) and Desigo PX Web modules PXA30-W0, PXA30-W1, PXA30-W2 for Desigo PX automation controllers PXC00-U, PXC64-U, PXC128-U (All firmware versions < V6.00.046) use a pseudo random number generator with insufficient entropy to generate certificates for HTTPS, potentially allowing remote attackers to reconstruct the corresponding private key.
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 confidenceSiemens Desigo PX Web modules use a pseudo random number generator with insufficient entropy to generate HTTPS certificates, allowing remote attackers to potentially reconstruct private keys due to predictable cryptographic randomness.
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<= 6.00.00<= 6.00.00<= 6.00.00<= 6.00.00<= 6.00.00<= 6.00.00CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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.
-
Identify the Desigo web module modelLocate the model number of the Siemens Desigo web module in the system documentation, device labels, or management interface. Confirm it is either Pxa30 or Pxa40 variant (W0, W1, or W2).Affected if The model is a Desigo Pxa30 or Pxa40 variant.
-
Check the installed firmware versionAccess the web module admin interface, system information panel, or use the device management console to retrieve the current firmware version. Compare it against the affected range.Affected if Firmware version is 6.00.00 or lower.
-
Verify HTTPS web server functionality is enabledCheck the web module configuration settings to determine if the built-in HTTPS server is active. Look for SSL/TLS or web server settings in the management interface.Affected if HTTPS/web server is enabled and configured to use certificates.
-
Inspect certificate generation contextExamine the certificate management section of the web module to see if certificates were generated on-device. Look for self-signed certificates or certificates created by the system's certificate generation feature.Affected if The system generated its own HTTPS certificates rather than using externally-provided certificates.
You are affected if you are running a Desigo Pxa30 or Pxa40 web module with firmware version 6.00.00 or lower and the HTTPS server is enabled with self-generated certificates.
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 firmware to version V6.00.046 or later to address the insufficient entropy issue in the certificate generation process.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-9154 — 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-2016-9154 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