CVE-2017-7924
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 MicroLogix 1100 controllers 1763-L16BWA, 1763-L16AWA, 1763-L16BBB, and 1763-L16DWD. A remote, unauthenticated attacker could send a single, specially crafted Programmable Controller Communication Commands (PCCC) packet to the controller that could potentially cause the controller to enter a DoS condition.
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 confidenceThis is an improper input validation vulnerability in Rockwell Automation MicroLogix 1100 controllers (models 1763-L16BWA, 1763-L16AWA, 1763-L16BBB, and 1763-L16DWD). A remote, unauthenticated attacker can send a specially crafted PCCC (Programmable Controller Communication Commands) packet that causes the controller to enter 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 dataall versionsall versionsall 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
- 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 the controller modelLocate the model number label on the physical MicroLogix 1100 controller or query the controller's firmware information through RSLogix/Studio 5000 or the embedded web server (if available)Affected if The model number is 1763-L16BWA, 1763-L16AWA, 1763-L16BBB, or 1763-L16DWD (any firmware version)
-
Verify PCCC protocol is enabledCheck if the controller has PCCC/EtherNet/IP communication enabled. This can be done by reviewing the controller's communication configuration in RSLogix/Studio 5000 or by scanning the controller's IP address on port 44818 (EtherNet/IP)Affected if PCCC over Ethernet is enabled and responding on the network
-
Check network exposure of PCCC portScan the controller's IP address for open port 44818 (EtherNet/IP PCCC). Use a network scanner or `nmap -p 44818 <controller_ip>` to determine if the port is accessibleAffected if Port 44818 is open and reachable from network segments accessible to unauthorized users
-
Assess network segmentationReview the network topology and VLAN configuration to determine if the controller is isolated on a restricted network segment or if it shares network space with untrusted systemsAffected if The controller is on an unisolated network segment without physical or logical isolation from untrusted hosts
You are affected if you have any of the four MicroLogix 1100 model variants (1763-L16BWA, 1763-L16AWA, 1763-L16BBB, 1763-L16DWD) with PCCC enabled and accessible from network paths that could be reached by an unauthenticated remote attacker.
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 dataIsolate affected controllers on a restricted network segment and apply any available vendor firmware updates; implement firewall rules to limit PCCC traffic to authorized sources only.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,608.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-7924 — 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-2017-7924 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