CVE-2021-20611
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 · uneditedImproper Input Validation vulnerability in Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC iQ-R Series R00/01/02CPU, MELSEC iQ-R Series R04/08/16/32/120(EN)CPU, MELSEC iQ-R Series R08/16/32/120SFCPU, MELSEC iQ-R Series R08/16/32/120PCPU, MELSEC iQ-R Series R08/16/32/120PSFCPU, MELSEC iQ-R Series R16/32/64MTCPU, MELSEC iQ-R Series R12CCPU-V, MELSEC Q Series Q03UDECPU, MELSEC Q Series Q04/06/10/13/20/26/50/100UDEHCPU, MELSEC Q Series Q03/04/06/13/26UDVCPU, MELSEC Q Series Q04/06/13/26UDPVCPU, MELSEC Q Series Q12DCCPU-V, MELSEC Q Series Q24DHCCPU-V(G), MELSEC Q Series Q24/26DHCCPU-LS, MELSEC Q Series MR-MQ100, MELSEC Q Series Q172/173DCPU-S1, MELSEC Q Series Q172/173DSCPU, MELSEC Q Series Q170MCPU, MELSEC Q Series Q170MSCPU(-S1), MELSEC L Series L02/06/26CPU(-P), MELSEC L Series L26CPU-(P)BT and MELIPC Series MI5122-VW allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to cause a denial-of-service (DoS) condition by sending specially crafted packets. System reset is required for recovery.
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 confidenceImproper input validation vulnerability in Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC iQ-R and Q Series PLCs allows remote unauthenticated attackers to cause denial-of-service by sending specially crafted packets. The vulnerability stems from insufficient validation of incoming network communications, leading to a system crash that requires manual reset for recovery.
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<= 24<= 24<= 24<= 57<= 57all versions<= 57all versions<= 57all versions<= 57all 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
- 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 MELSEC iQ-R PLCs in your environmentInventory network devices and verify if any Mitsubishi MELSEC iQ-R Series PLCs (CPU models R00, R01, R02, R04, R08, R120, R16, R32) are present on the networkAffected if MELSEC iQ-R PLCs are present in the network inventory
-
Determine the CPU model numberAccess the PLC configuration via GX Works3 engineering software or check the physical PLC unit label to identify the exact CPU model (R00, R01, R02, R04, R08, R120, R16, or R32)Affected if The CPU model is one of: R00, R01, R02, R04, R08, R120, R16, or R32
-
Check the installed firmware versionConnect to the PLC via GX Works3, navigate to CPU module diagnostics, and read the firmware version from the product information or system information screenAffected if Firmware version is <= 24 for R00/R01/R02, or <= 57 for R04/R08/R120/R16/R32 (or 'all versions' is listed for that model)
-
Verify network communication is enabledCheck the PLC network configuration in GX Works3 under the Ethernet/TCP-IP settings to confirm the PLC has an active IP address and network communication module is configuredAffected if The PLC has an active network interface and is reachable over Ethernet
-
Confirm network accessibilityPing the PLC IP address or attempt a TCP connection to common industrial protocol ports (such as 5002 for MELSEC, or as configured) to verify the PLC is network-accessible from your workstationsAffected if The PLC responds to network requests and is accessible from your operational network
Your environment is affected if you have a MELSEC iQ-R PLC (R00, R01, R02, R04, R08, R120, R16, or R32) with firmware at or below the listed version threshold AND the PLC is network-connected and accessible.
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 vendor patches when available. Until patches are applied, implement network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict unauthorized access to affected PLCs, and monitor for anomalous network traffic patterns.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 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 $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-20611 — 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-2021-20611 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