CVE-2017-6024
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 Resource Exhaustion issue was discovered in Rockwell Automation ControlLogix 5580 controllers V28.011, V28.012, and V28.013; ControlLogix 5580 controllers V29.011; CompactLogix 5380 controllers V28.011; and CompactLogix 5380 controllers V29.011. This vulnerability may allow an attacker to cause a denial of service condition by sending a series of specific CIP-based commands to the controller.
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 confidenceThis is a resource exhaustion vulnerability in Rockwell ControlLogix 5580 and CompactLogix 5380 controllers. An attacker can send specific CIP (Common Industrial Protocol) commands to the controller, potentially causing it to become unresponsive or crash, resulting in a denial of service condition.
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= v28.011= v29.011= v28.011= v28.012= v28.013= v29.011CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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 controller modelAccess the controller properties through RSLogix 5000 or Studio 5000, or check the physical controller label and runtime configuration to confirm the model is ControlLogix 5580 or CompactLogix 5380Affected if The controller model is ControlLogix 5580 or CompactLogix 5380
-
Determine firmware versionConnect to the controller via RSLinx Classic or FactoryTalk Linx, then use RSLogix 5000 or Studio 5000 to view the controller properties and firmware revision. Alternatively, check the firmware file loaded on the controller module.Affected if The firmware version is exactly v28.011, v28.012, v28.013, or v29.011 for ControlLogix 5580; or v28.011 or v29.011 for CompactLogix 5380
-
Assess network exposure to CIP trafficReview network architecture and firewall rules to determine whether the controller is accessible from untrusted network segments. Check if CIP (Common Industrial Protocol) traffic on ports 2222, 44818, or similar can reach the controller from external or unauthorized sources.Affected if The controller accepts CIP commands from untrusted network sources without proper network segmentation or filtering
-
Check for denial of service symptomsMonitor controller communication status, task execution, and response times through RSLogix/Studio 5000, RSLinx, or the controller's web interface. Look for indicators such as failed connections, controller in Program or Faulted mode, or inability to establish CIP sessions.Affected if The controller exhibits unexpected unresponsiveness, frequent connection failures, or transitions to Faulted mode without known cause
A user is affected if they have a ControlLogix 5580 or CompactLogix 5380 controller running the specific affected firmware versions (v28.011, v28.012, v28.013, or v29.011) and that controller can receive CIP commands from an untrusted network source.
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 dataNetwork segmentation and firewall rules should be implemented to restrict unauthorized CIP traffic to the controllers. Additionally, controllers should be updated to patched firmware versions when available.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $10,240.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-6024 — 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-2017-6024 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