CVE-2019-10929
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 CP 1626 (All versions), SIMATIC ET 200SP Open Controller CPU 1515SP PC (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions), SIMATIC ET 200SP Open Controller CPU 1515SP PC2 (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions < V20.8), SIMATIC HMI Panel (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions), SIMATIC NET PC Software V14 (All versions < V14 SP1 Update 14), SIMATIC NET PC Software V15 (All versions), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions < V4.4.0), SIMATIC S7-1500 CPU family (incl. related ET200 CPUs and SIPLUS variants) (All versions < V2.8.1), SIMATIC S7-1500 Software Controller (All versions < V20.8), SIMATIC S7-PLCSIM Advanced (All versions < V3.0), SIMATIC STEP 7 (TIA Portal) (All versions < V16), SIMATIC WinCC (TIA Portal) (All versions < V16), SIMATIC WinCC OA (All versions < V3.16 P013), SIMATIC WinCC Runtime Advanced (All versions < V16), SIMATIC WinCC Runtime Professional (All versions < V16), TIM 1531 IRC (incl. SIPLUS NET variants) (All versions < V2.1). Affected devices contain a message protection bypass vulnerability due to certain properties in the calculation used for integrity protection. This could allow an attacker in a Man-in-the-Middle position to modify network traffic sent on port 102/tcp to the affected devices.
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 vulnerability exists in the integrity protection mechanism for S7comm protocol communications (port 102/tcp) across multiple Siemens SIMATIC device families. An attacker with man-in-the-middle positioning can bypass message integrity checks due to flaws in the calculation used for authentication, allowing modification of network traffic to affected devices.
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<= 4.0<= 4.0<= 4.0<= 4.0<= 4.0all 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
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 device model and firmware versionAccess the device engineering software (TIA Portal) or device web interface to read the exact CPU model name and firmware version. For S7-1200: go to Online Access > Device > Online & Diagnostics > General. For S7-1500: same path. For ET200sp: check the CPU module label or system information in TIA Portal.Affected if The device model matches any of: ET 200sp Open Controller CPU 1515sp, ET 200sp Open Controller CPU 1515sp PC2, S7-1200 CPU 1211c/1212c/1214c/1215c/1217c with firmware <=4.0, or S7-1500 CPU 1518 (any version).
-
Confirm S7comm protocol is enabledCheck device configuration in TIA Portal under Properties > Protection & Security > Access Protection or check if port 102/tcp is listening on the device. Use 'netstat -an | grep 102' or a port scanner targeting the device IP.Affected if The S7comm protocol (ISO-TSAP on port 102/tcp) is enabled and accepting connections.
-
Verify network exposure to untrusted networksReview network architecture and firewall rules to determine if the device with port 102/tcp is accessible from untrusted networks, DMZ segments, or directly from corporate networks. Check for absence of industrial DMZ or network segmentation.Affected if Port 102/tcp is accessible from network segments outside the trusted OT network, or the device lacks network segmentation controls that would prevent MITM positioning.
You are affected if your device is one of the listed models and the S7comm protocol (port 102/tcp) is enabled and accessible from a network where an attacker could achieve man-in-the-middle positioning.
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 dataApply available vendor patches to update affected devices to the specified minimum versions (V20.8 for ET200SP/PLCSIM, V14 SP1 Update 14 for NET PC Software V14, V4.4.0 for S7-1200, V2.8.1 for S7-1500, V16 for WinCC/TIA Portal, V3.16 P013 for WinCC OA, V2.1 for TIM 1531). Network segmentation can limit MITM attack exposure.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $12,352.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-10929 — 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-2019-10929 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