CVE-2019-6524
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 · uneditedMoxa IKS and EDS do not implement sufficient measures to prevent multiple failed authentication attempts, which may allow an attacker to discover passwords via brute force attack.
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 confidenceMoxa IKS and EDS industrial Ethernet switches lack account lockout mechanisms or rate limiting after failed authentication attempts, enabling attackers to conduct unrestricted brute force attacks against the login interface to discover valid credentials.
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<= 4.5<= 3.8<= 3.8<= 3.8CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 device modelAccess the device web interface, check the device label, or use SNMP to query sysDescr. The affected models are: IKS-G6824A, EDS-405A, EDS-408A, EDS-510A.Affected if The device is a Moxa IKS-G6824A, EDS-405A, EDS-408A, or EDS-510A switch.
-
Check firmware versionLog into the web interface and navigate to System Settings > Firmware Version, or use SNMP OID 1.3.6.1.4.1.8691.7.128. Compare the version number against the affected ranges: IKS-G6824A <= 4.5, EDS-405A/408A/510A <= 3.8.Affected if The firmware version is at or below 4.5 for IKS-G6824A, or at or below 3.8 for EDS-405A, EDS-408A, or EDS-510A.
-
Verify management interface accessibilityDetermine if the device web, SSH, or Telnet management interface is reachable from network segments accessible to untrusted users. Check firewall rules and ACLs protecting the device.Affected if The management interface is exposed to untrusted network segments without network-level access controls.
-
Test for account lockout or rate limitingFrom an external system, attempt 10+ failed login attempts against the web or SSH interface using invalid credentials. Observe whether the account locks, the IP is blocked, or the authentication attempt is rate-limited in any way.Affected if After multiple failed attempts, the device allows unlimited further attempts without any lockout, delay, or IP blocking.
You are affected if you have a Moxa IKS-G6824A with firmware <= 4.5 or an EDS-405A/408A/510A with firmware <= 3.8, and the management interface is accessible from a network where attackers could conduct unrestricted brute force attacks.
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 dataImplement network-level controls such as firewall rules, IPS signatures, or fail2ban-style blocking to limit authentication attempts, and apply vendor firmware updates when available. Consider network segmentation to limit exposure of management interfaces.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $10,240.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-6524 — 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-2019-6524 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