CVE-2018-7793
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 Credential Management vulnerability exists in FoxView HMI SCADA (All Foxboro DCS, Foxboro Evo, and IA Series versions prior to Foxboro DCS Control Core Services 9.4 (CCS 9.4) and FoxView 10.5.) which could cause unauthorized disclosure, modification, or disruption in service when the password is modified without permission.
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 credential management vulnerability in FoxView HMI SCADA allows unauthorized password modification in affected Foxboro DCS, Foxboro Evo, and IA Series versions prior to CCS 9.4 and FoxView 10.5. This could enable attackers to gain unauthorized access, modify system configurations, or disrupt operations by changing credentials without proper authorization.
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< ccs_9.4< ccs_9.4= 10.5< ccs_9.4CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L
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 installed Schneider Electric productDetermine if Foxboro DCS, Foxboro Evo, FoxView, or IA Series SCADA/HMI software is installed on the system. Check installed programs, services, or documentation for the product name.Affected if The system runs Foxboro DCS, Foxboro Evo, FoxView, or IA Series SCADA software.
-
Check the CCS version for Foxboro productsLocate the CCS (Control Core Services) version information. This may be found in the software itself, installation directories, or system services panel. Look for version metadata or about dialogs.Affected if The installed CCS version is below 9.4 on Foxboro DCS, Foxboro Evo, or IA Series.
-
Check the FoxView versionLocate the FoxView version information. This may be found in the application itself, installation directories, or version documentation.Affected if The installed FoxView version is exactly 10.5.
-
Verify if FoxView HMI interface is accessibleConfirm whether the FoxView HMI web interface or application is exposed and accessible on the network or locally. Check network bindings, firewall rules, or service configurations.Affected if The FoxView HMI interface is enabled and accessible, combined with an affected version.
You are affected if you run Foxboro DCS, Foxboro Evo, or IA Series with CCS version below 9.4, or FoxView version 10.5, and the FoxView HMI interface is accessible.
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 dataUpgrade Foxboro DCS Control Core Services to version 9.4 or later and FoxView to version 10.5 or later. Verify all password policies and access controls are properly configured after upgrade.
- 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-2018-7793 — 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-2018-7793 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