CVE-2021-22702
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 CWE-319: Cleartext transmission of sensitive information vulnerability exists in PowerLogic ION7400, ION7650, ION7700/73xx, ION83xx/84xx/85xx/8600, ION8650, ION8800, ION9000 and PM800 (see notification for affected versions), that could cause disclosure of user credentials when a malicious actor intercepts Telnet network traffic between a user and the device.
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 confidenceThis vulnerability allows attackers to intercept Telnet network traffic and capture user credentials in cleartext. The affected power management devices transmit authentication data without encryption, enabling credential theft through man-in-the-middle attacks.
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< 3.0.0all versionsall versionsall versionsall versions<= 4.31.2all versions< 3.0.0CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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 Powerlogic Ion device modelAccess the device web interface, console, or use SNMP to query the device model (sysDescr or similar OID). Common paths: Device Info > Model or System > Device Identity.Affected if The device model is one of: Ion7400, Ion7650, Ion7700, Ion7300, Ion8600, Ion8650, Ion8800, or Ion9000.
-
Determine the installed firmware versionCheck the firmware version through the device web interface (typically under About, Device Info, or System > Firmware), console command (e.g., show version, info), or SNMP query.Affected if For Ion7400 or Ion9000: version is below 3.0.0. For Ion8650: version is 4.31.2 or lower. For Ion7650, Ion7700, Ion7300, Ion8600, Ion8800: any version.
-
Verify if Telnet service is enabled on the deviceCheck the device network services or security settings (typically under Network > Services, Security > Remote Access, or System Configuration > Communication). Look for Telnet in the list of enabled protocols.Affected if Telnet is listed as an enabled or active service.
-
Confirm Telnet port is listening and accessiblePerform a port scan or telnet connectivity test to the device IP on port 23 (e.g., nmap -p 23 <device_ip> or telnet <device_ip>). Verify the device responds on TCP port 23.Affected if Port 23 responds and a Telnet service banner or login prompt is returned.
If the device is an affected Ion model running a vulnerable firmware version AND Telnet is enabled and accessible on the network, the device is vulnerable to credential interception.
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 data3.0.0
Disable Telnet on all affected devices and migrate to encrypted remote access protocols such as SSH. If Telnet is required, tunnel it through a VPN or implement network segmentation to prevent unauthorized traffic interception.
- 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-2021-22702 — 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-2021-22702 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