CVE-2019-9744
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered on PHOENIX CONTACT FL NAT SMCS 8TX, FL NAT SMN 8TX, FL NAT SMN 8TX-M, and FL NAT SMN 8TX-M-DMG devices. There is unauthorized access to the WEB-UI by attackers arriving from the same source IP address as an authenticated user, because this IP address is used as a session identifier.
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 confidenceThe Phoenix Contact FL NAT devices use the client source IP address as the sole session identifier for web UI authentication. An attacker sharing the same IP address (e.g., behind NAT, on same network, or via IP spoofing) can impersonate any currently authenticated user and gain unauthorized access to the web interface.
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 versionsall versionsall 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 the device modelAccess the device web UI or CLI and retrieve the exact product model name (e.g., FL NAT SMN 8TX, FL NAT SMN 8TX M, FL NAT SMN 8TX M DMG, or FL NAT SMCS 8TX)Affected if The model matches one of the affected products: FL NAT SMN 8TX M DMG, FL NAT SMN 8TX M, FL NAT SMN 8TX, or FL NAT SMCS 8TX
-
Confirm firmware versionCheck the device firmware version through the web interface (typically under System > Firmware or Status page) or via CLI commandAffected if All firmware versions of the affected models are vulnerable; any version found confirms exposure
-
Verify web UI is enabledAttempt to access the device web interface via HTTP/HTTPS on the configured management IP addressAffected if The web UI is accessible and responds to authentication requests, enabling the attack vector
-
Check network exposureDetermine if the device web UI is accessible from networks where multiple clients share the same source IP address (e.g., behind NAT, on a shared LAN segment, or exposed to untrusted networks)Affected if The web UI is reachable from behind a NAT gateway, from a shared network segment, or from any network where other devices or users can source traffic with a potentially shared IP address
The environment is affected if a Phoenix Contact FL NAT device (SMN 8TX, SMN 8TX M, SMN 8TX M DMG, or SMCS 8TX) has its web UI accessible from any network where multiple clients can appear with the same source IP address.
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 dataReplace IP-based session management with cryptographically random session tokens; until a vendor firmware patch is available, restrict web UI access to isolated networks or VPN-only connections.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-9744 — 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-2019-9744 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