CVE-2017-16719
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 Injection issue was discovered in Moxa NPort 5110 Version 2.2, NPort 5110 Version 2.4, NPort 5110 Version 2.6, NPort 5110 Version 2.7, NPort 5130 Version 3.7 and prior, and NPort 5150 Version 3.7 and prior. An attacker may be able to inject packets that could potentially disrupt the availability of the device.
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 confidenceMoxa NPort serial-to-ethernet converters contain an injection vulnerability that allows remote attackers to send specially crafted packets to disrupt device availability, potentially causing denial of service. The vulnerability exists in multiple firmware versions across NPort 5110, 5130, and 5150 models.
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= 2.2= 2.4= 2.6= 2.7<= 3.7<= 3.7CVSS 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.
-
Identify Moxa NPort device models on the networkUse network scanning tools or check device physical labels to determine if NPort 5110, 5130, or 5150 devices are present in the environmentAffected if The environment contains NPort 5110, 5130, or 5150 devices
-
Determine the firmware version of each NPort deviceAccess the device web interface, console, or administrative panel and locate the firmware version in the system information or status sectionAffected if The installed firmware version is 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, or 2.7 for NPort 5110; or 3.7 or lower for NPort 5130 or 5150
-
Assess network exposure of the NPort management interfaceCheck if the NPort device is accessible from untrusted networks by reviewing firewall rules and network segmentationAffected if The device management interface is reachable from networks outside the trusted administrative zone
An organization is affected if they have any NPort 5110, 5130, or 5150 devices running the specified vulnerable firmware versions and the device can receive network packets from remote attackers.
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 dataApply vendor-supplied firmware updates to patched versions; if unavailable, implement network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict access to authorized hosts only.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-16719 — 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-2017-16719 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