CVE-2018-16557
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 S7-400 CPU 412-1 DP V7 (All versions), SIMATIC S7-400 CPU 412-2 DP V7 (All versions), SIMATIC S7-400 CPU 414-2 DP V7 (All versions), SIMATIC S7-400 CPU 414-3 DP V7 (All versions), SIMATIC S7-400 CPU 414-3 PN/DP V7 (All versions < V7.0.3), SIMATIC S7-400 CPU 414F-3 PN/DP V7 (All versions < V7.0.3), SIMATIC S7-400 CPU 416-2 DP V7 (All versions), SIMATIC S7-400 CPU 416-3 DP V7 (All versions), SIMATIC S7-400 CPU 416-3 PN/DP V7 (All versions < V7.0.3), SIMATIC S7-400 CPU 416F-2 DP V7 (All versions), SIMATIC S7-400 CPU 416F-3 PN/DP V7 (All versions < V7.0.3), SIMATIC S7-400 CPU 417-4 DP V7 (All versions), SIMATIC S7-400 CPU 412-2 PN V7 (All versions < V7.0.3), SIMATIC S7-400 H V4.5 and below CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions), SIMATIC S7-400 H V6 CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions < V6.0.9), SIMATIC S7-400 PN/DP V6 and below CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions), SIMATIC S7-410 CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions < V8.2.1), SIPLUS S7-400 CPU 414-3 PN/DP V7 (All versions < V7.0.3), SIPLUS S7-400 CPU 416-3 PN/DP V7 (All versions < V7.0.3), SIPLUS S7-400 CPU 416-3 V7 (All versions), SIPLUS S7-400 CPU 417-4 V7 (All versions). Sending of specially crafted packets to port 102/tcp via Ethernet interface via PROFIBUS or Multi Point Interfaces (MPI) could cause a denial of service condition on affected devices. Flashing with a firmware image may be required to recover the CPU. Successful exploitation requires an attacker to have network access to port 102/tcp via Ethernet interface or to be able to send messages via PROFIBUS or Multi Point Interfaces (MPI) to the device. No user interaction is required. If no access protection is configured, no privileges are required to exploit the security vulnerability. The vulnerability could allow causing a denial of service condition of the core functionality of the CPU, compromising the availability of the system.
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 confidenceDenial of service vulnerability in Siemens SIMATIC S7-400 CPU family allowing remote attackers to crash affected devices by sending specially crafted packets to port 102/tcp via Ethernet, PROFIBUS, or MPI interfaces. Successful exploitation causes CPU failure requiring firmware reflash for recovery.
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<= v6.0all versions<= v4.5>= 6.0.0, < 6.0.9< 8.2.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/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 SIMATIC S7 CPU modelAccess the PLC via TIA Portal, STEP 7, or the device's web interface to confirm the exact CPU model (S7-400, S7-400 Pn/dp V7, S7-400h, or S7-410)Affected if The device is any of these four S7-400 family models
-
Determine the installed firmware versionIn TIA Portal or STEP 7, go to the CPU's Online & Diagnostics > General > Firmware version; or access the device's diagnostics buffer or web interfaceAffected if Firmware version is <=6.0 for S7-400, any version for S7-400 Pn/dp V7, <=4.5 or >=6.0.0 but <6.0.9 for S7-400h, or <8.2.1 for S7-410
-
Verify port 102/tcp exposureScan the network for open port 102/tcp on the PLC's IP address using a port scanner (e.g., nmap -p 102 <target_ip>)Affected if Port 102/tcp is accessible from untrusted networks
-
Confirm enabled industrial interfacesIn TIA Portal/STEP 7, check the CPU's properties for enabled communication interfaces: Ethernet (PN), PROFIBUS (DP), or MPIAffected if Any of these interfaces are enabled and reachable on the network
A user is affected if they have an S7-400 family CPU with firmware matching the vulnerable versions AND port 102/tcp is network-accessible with an enabled interface.
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 data6.0.98.2.1
Apply vendor-supplied firmware updates to all affected S7-400 CPU models; implement network segmentation and access controls on port 102/tcp to limit exposure.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $8,608.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-16557 — 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-2018-16557 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