CVE-2019-13927
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 Desigo PX automation controllers PXC00-E.D, PXC50-E.D, PXC100-E.D, PXC200-E.D with Desigo PX Web modules PXA40-W0, PXA40-W1, PXA40-W2 (All firmware versions < V6.00.320), Desigo PX automation controllers PXC00-U, PXC64-U, PXC128-U with Desigo PX Web modules PXA30-W0, PXA30-W1, PXA30-W2 (All firmware versions < V6.00.320), Desigo PX automation controllers PXC22.1-E.D, PXC36-E.D, PXC36.1-E.D with activated web server (All firmware versions < V6.00.320). The device contains a vulnerability that could allow an attacker to cause a denial of service condition on the device's web server by sending a specially crafted HTTP message to the web server port (tcp/80). The security vulnerability could be exploited by an attacker with network access to an affected device. Successful exploitation requires no system privileges and no user interaction. An attacker could use the vulnerability to compromise the availability of the device's web service. While the device itself stays operational, the web server responds with HTTP status code 404 (Not found) to any further request. A reboot is required to recover the web interface. At the time of advisory publication no public exploitation of this security vulnerability was known.
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 denial of service vulnerability exists in the web server component of Siemens Desigo PX automation controllers with certain Web modules. An attacker with network access can send a specially crafted HTTP message to port 80/tcp that causes the web server to permanently return 404 errors to all subsequent requests, rendering the web interface non-functional until device reboot.
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< 6.00.320< 6.00.320< 6.00.320< 6.00.320< 6.00.320< 6.00.320< 6.00.320< 6.00.320CVSS 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
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 Desigo PX controller modelLocate the model number label on the physical device or check the device documentation. Common models include Pxc00 E.d, Pxc50 E.d, Pxc100 E.d, Pxc200 E.d, Pxa40 W0, Pxa40 W1, Pxa40 W2, and Pxc00 U.Affected if The model is any of the affected variants listed in the CVE (Pxc00 E.d, Pxc50 E.d, Pxc100 E.d, Pxc200 E.d, Pxa40 W0, Pxa40 W1, Pxa40 W2, Pxc00 U).
-
Check the installed firmware versionAccess the device web interface or use the native management tool to view the firmware version information. Compare the installed version against the affected range.Affected if The firmware version is lower than 6.00.320.
-
Confirm the web server component is enabledVerify through the device configuration or web interface that the web server or web modules are active. The vulnerability only affects the web server component.Affected if The web server or web modules are enabled and running on the device.
-
Verify network accessibility to port 80/tcpDetermine if port 80/tcp is exposed to the network. Use network scanning tools or check firewall rules to confirm the web server port is reachable from untrusted networks.Affected if Port 80/tcp is accessible from network segments that include untrusted or attacker-controlled systems.
The device is affected if it is one of the listed models, runs firmware below version 6.00.320, has the web server enabled, and has port 80/tcp accessible from a network where an attacker could send the specially crafted HTTP request.
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 data6.00.320
Upgrade Desigo PX firmware to version V6.00.320 or later on all affected devices. If immediate patching is not possible, restrict network access to the web server port (80/tcp) to trusted networks or implement compensating controls.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,728.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-13927 — 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-2019-13927 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