CVE-2017-14022
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 · uneditedAn Improper Input Validation issue was discovered in Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk Alarms and Events, Version 2.90 and earlier. An unauthenticated attacker with remote access to a network with FactoryTalk Alarms and Events can send a specially crafted set of packets packet to Port 403/TCP (the history archiver service), causing the service to either stall or terminate.
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 confidenceImproper input validation vulnerability in Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk Alarms and Events history archiver service (Port 403/TCP). An unauthenticated remote attacker with network access can send specially crafted packets to cause the service to stall or terminate, resulting in denial of service.
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<= 2.90CVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify FactoryTalk Alarms and Events is installedCheck the Windows Programs and Features list or look for FactoryTalk Alarms and Events in the installed programs registry key (HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall)Affected if The product is present on the system
-
Check if history archiver service is running on Port 403/TCPRun command 'netstat -ano | findstr :403' or use PowerShell 'Get-NetTCPConnection -LocalPort 403' to verify if the service is listeningAffected if Port 403/TCP is in LISTENING state and bound to a process
-
Determine installed version of FactoryTalk Alarms and EventsOpen Windows Programs and Features, locate 'FactoryTalk Alarms and Events' and note the version column, or check the version in the registry under the product's uninstall keyAffected if The installed version is 2.90 or lower (any version <= 2.90)
-
Assess network exposure of Port 403/TCPRun 'netsh advfirewall firewall show rule name=all' or review external firewall rules to determine if Port 403/TCP is accessible from untrusted networksAffected if Port 403/TCP is open to untrusted/external network segments
If FactoryTalk Alarms and Events version 2.90 or lower is installed, the history archiver service is running on Port 403/TCP, and that port is network-accessible, the environment is vulnerable to this CVE.
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 403/TCP through firewall rules or network segmentation to prevent unauthorized external traffic. If available, apply vendor-supplied patches for FactoryTalk Alarms and Events.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-14022 — 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-2017-14022 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