CVE-2016-9159
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 S7-300 CPU family (All versions), SIMATIC S7-300 CPU family (incl. related ET200 CPUs and SIPLUS variants) (All versions), SIMATIC S7-400 PN/DP V6 and below CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions), SIMATIC S7-400 PN/DP V7 CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions), SIMATIC S7-400 V6 and earlier CPU family (All versions), SIMATIC S7-400 V7 CPU family (All versions), SIMATIC S7-410 V8 CPU family (All versions), SIMATIC S7-410 V8 CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions). An attacker with network access to port 102/tcp (ISO-TSAP) or via Profibus could obtain credentials from the PLC if protection-level 2 is configured on the affected devices.
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 confidenceA credential disclosure vulnerability in SIMATIC S7-300 and S7-400 PLC families allows an unauthenticated remote attacker with network access to port 102/tcp (ISO-TSAP) or Profibus to obtain credentials when protection-level 2 is configured on the affected devices.
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 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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 PLC modelConnect to the PLC via Step 7 (TIA Portal) or check device labeling/CMM module to confirm the device is a Simatic S7-300 or S7-400 CPUAffected if The device is a Simatic S7-300 or S7-400 CPU
-
Check protection level configurationIn Step 7 or TIA Portal, navigate to CPU properties > Protection > Protection Level, or use the 'PC Interface' function to read the device configuration and inspect the configured protection levelAffected if Protection level 2 (read access) is configured; levels 0, 1, and 3 are not affected by this specific vulnerability
-
Verify port 102/tcp accessibilityFrom an external host, run 'nmap -p 102 <target-ip>' or use a TCP port scanner to check if port 102/tcp (ISO-TSAP) is open and reachable from the networkAffected if Port 102/tcp is open and accessible from an untrusted network segment
-
Check Profibus exposureIf Profibus is used, verify whether the Profibus network is accessible from untrusted network segments or has gateway/proxy exposureAffected if Profibus interfaces are reachable from untrusted networks without segmentation
The device is affected if it is a Simatic S7-300 or S7-400 with protection level 2 configured AND port 102/tcp or Profibus is accessible from an untrusted network.
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 dataRestrict network access to port 102/tcp using firewalls or network segmentation, and upgrade to protection-level 3 or higher if available; consider applying vendor firmware updates and monitoring for unauthorized access attempts.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $11,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-9159 — 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-2016-9159 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