CVE-2018-4843
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 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 416-3 PN/DP V7 (All versions < V7.0.3), SIMATIC S7-400 CPU 416F-3 PN/DP V7 (All versions < V7.0.3), SIMATIC CP 343-1 (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions), SIMATIC CP 343-1 Advanced (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions), SIMATIC CP 443-1 (All versions < V3.3), SIMATIC CP 443-1 (All versions < V3.3), SIMATIC CP 443-1 Advanced (All versions < V3.3), SIMATIC ET 200pro IM154-8 PN/DP CPU (All versions < V3.2.16), SIMATIC ET 200pro IM154-8F PN/DP CPU (All versions < V3.2.16), SIMATIC ET 200pro IM154-8FX PN/DP CPU (All versions < V3.2.16), SIMATIC ET 200S IM151-8 PN/DP CPU (All versions < V3.2.16), SIMATIC ET 200S IM151-8F PN/DP CPU (All versions < V3.2.16), SIMATIC S7-1500 CPU family (incl. related ET200 CPUs and SIPLUS variants) (All versions < V1.7.0), SIMATIC S7-1500 Software Controller (All versions < V1.7.0), SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 314C-2 PN/DP (All versions < V3.3.16), SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 315-2 PN/DP (All versions < V3.2.16), SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 315F-2 PN/DP (All versions < V3.2.16), SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 315T-3 PN/DP (All versions < V3.2.16), SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 317-2 PN/DP (All versions < V3.2.16), SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 317F-2 PN/DP (All versions < V3.2.16), SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 317T-3 PN/DP (All versions < V3.2.16), SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 317TF-3 PN/DP (All versions < V3.2.16), SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 319-3 PN/DP (All versions < V3.2.16), SIMATIC S7-300 CPU 319F-3 PN/DP (All versions < V3.2.16), SIMATIC S7-400 CPU 412-2 PN V7 (All versions < V7.0.3), SIMATIC S7-400 H V6 CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions < V6.0.9), SIMATIC S7-400 PN/DP V6 CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions < V6.0.7), SIMATIC S7-410 CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions < V8.1), SIMATIC WinAC RTX 2010 (All versions < V2010 SP3), SIMATIC WinAC RTX F 2010 (All versions < V2010 SP3), SINUMERIK 828D (All versions < V4.7 SP6 HF1), SIPLUS ET 200S IM151-8 PN/DP CPU (All versions < V3.2.16), SIPLUS ET 200S IM151-8F PN/DP CPU (All versions < V3.2.16), SIPLUS NET CP 443-1 (All versions < V3.3), SIPLUS NET CP 443-1 Advanced (All versions < V3.3), SIPLUS S7-300 CPU 314C-2 PN/DP (All versions < V3.3.16), SIPLUS S7-300 CPU 315-2 PN/DP (All versions < V3.2.16), SIPLUS S7-300 CPU 315F-2 PN/DP (All versions < V3.2.16), SIPLUS S7-300 CPU 317-2 PN/DP (All versions < V3.2.16), SIPLUS S7-300 CPU 317F-2 PN/DP (All versions < V3.2.16), 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), Softnet PROFINET IO for PC-based Windows systems (All versions). Responding to a PROFINET DCP request with a specially crafted PROFINET DCP packet could cause a denial of service condition of the requesting system. The security vulnerability could be exploited by an attacker located on the same Ethernet segment (OSI Layer 2) as the targeted device. A manual restart is required to recover 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 confidenceA vulnerability in multiple Siemens SIMATIC devices allows an attacker on the same Layer 2 Ethernet segment to send a specially crafted PROFINET DCP (Discovery and Configuration Protocol) packet in response to a DCP request, causing a denial of service on the requesting system. The affected system requires a manual restart to recover.
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 versions< 1.7.0all versionsall versions< 6.0.7all versions< 8.1CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/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 SIMATIC device modelAccess the device via SIMATIC Manager, TIA Portal, or web interface and record the exact model number (e.g., CP 343-1, CP 443-1, S7-1500, S7-300, S7-400).Affected if The device model matches one listed in the affected products.
-
Check the installed firmware versionRetrieve the firmware version through the device's web interface, SIMATIC Manager, TIA Portal, or via the 'Online > Accessible Nodes' function. Compare against the affected version ranges: CP 343-1 and CP 443-1 (all versions affected), S7-1500 (< 1.7.0), S7-300 (all versions), S7-400 H V6 (all versions), S7-400 Pn/dp V6 (< 6.0.7), S7-400 Pn/dp V7 (all versions), S7-410 (< 8.1).Affected if The firmware version falls within the affected range for your specific device model.
-
Verify PROFINET DCP is enabledCheck the device configuration in TIA Portal or via the device web interface under PROFINET settings. Confirm that Discovery and Configuration Protocol (DCP) is not disabled in the PROFINET interface settings.Affected if PROFINET DCP is enabled (this is the default setting for most SIMATIC devices).
-
Assess Layer 2 network exposureReview the network topology and VLAN configuration to determine if untrusted or attacker-controlled devices can access the same Layer 2 Ethernet segment as the SIMATIC device. Check for proper network segmentation between operational technology and IT networks.Affected if The SIMATIC device shares a Layer 2 broadcast domain with untrusted or uncontrolled network segments.
Your environment is affected if you have a matching SIMATIC device model with a firmware version in the affected range, and that device has PROFINET DCP enabled while being accessible from an untrusted Layer 2 segment.
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 data1.7.06.0.78.1
Apply vendor-provided firmware updates to the specific version thresholds (e.g., S7-400 V7.0.3, CP 443-1 V3.3, S7-1500 V1.7.0) and implement network segmentation to restrict Layer 2 access from untrusted Ethernet segments.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $11,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-4843 — 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-2018-4843 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