CVE-2020-5668
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 · uneditedUncontrolled resource consumption vulnerability in MELSEC iQ-R Series modules (R00/01/02CPU firmware version '19' and earlier, R04/08/16/32/120 (EN) CPU firmware version '51' and earlier, R08/16/32/120SFCPU firmware version '22' and earlier, R08/16/32/120PCPU firmware version '25' and earlier, R08/16/32/120PSFCPU firmware version '06' and earlier, RJ71EN71 firmware version '47' and earlier, RJ71GF11-T2 firmware version '47' and earlier, RJ72GF15-T2 firmware version '07' and earlier, RJ71GP21-SX firmware version '47' and earlier, RJ71GP21S-SX firmware version '47' and earlier, and RJ71GN11-T2 firmware version '11' and earlier) allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to cause an error in a CPU unit and cause a denial-of-service (DoS) condition in execution of the program and its communication, or to cause a denial-of-service (DoS) condition in communication via the unit by receiving a specially crafted SLMP packet
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 confidenceMitsubishi MELSEC iQ-R Series PLC modules contain an uncontrolled resource consumption vulnerability where specially crafted SLMP packets can cause CPU errors leading to denial of service. The vulnerability is exploitable remotely by unauthenticated attackers.
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<= 19<= 19<= 19<= 51<= 51<= 51<= 51<= 51CVSS 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
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 PLC CPU modelDetermine if the target device is a Mitsubishi MELSEC iQ-R Series PLC (R00CPU, R01CPU, R02CPU, R04CPU, R08CPU, R16CPU, R32CPU, or R120CPU). Check the module labeling or consult the engineering project configuration in GX Works3.Affected if The device is any of the listed CPU models (R00cpu through R120cpu).
-
Check the firmware versionRetrieve the current firmware version from the PLC CPU module. This is typically accessible through GX Works3 under CPU module diagnostics, the module's web interface, or the system information display. Compare the installed version against the affected ranges.Affected if Firmware version is 19 or lower for R00/01/02CPU, or 51 or lower for R04/08/16/32/120CPU.
-
Verify SLMP protocol statusDetermine whether the SLMP (Seamless Message Protocol) communication function is enabled on the PLC. Check the PLC parameters in GX Works3 under the Ethernet port settings or SLMP configuration. Confirm if the SLMP server/listener is active.Affected if SLMP communication is enabled and accessible on the network.
-
Assess network exposure of SLMP serviceIdentify if the SLMP service (typically port 5007/tcp or 5006/tcp) is exposed beyond the trusted network segment. Review firewall rules, network segmentation, and access control lists to determine if unauthenticated remote access is possible.Affected if SLMP ports are reachable from untrusted network segments or the internet.
You are affected if you have a vulnerable R-series CPU (R00/01/02 with firmware <=19, or R04/08/16/32/120 with firmware <=51) with SLMP protocol enabled and accessible from an untrusted network.
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 dataUpdate firmware to versions beyond those specified (R00/01/02CPU to '20'+, R04/08/16/32/120EN CPU to '52'+, RJ71EN71 to '48'+, RJ71GF11-T2 to '48'+, etc.) and implement network segmentation to restrict SLMP access to trusted sources only.
- 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-2020-5668 — 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-2020-5668 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