CVE-2021-22767
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-20: Improper Input Validation vulnerability exists in PowerLogic EGX100 (Versions 3.0.0 and newer) and PowerLogic EGX300 (All Versions) that could cause denial of service or remote code execution via a specially crafted HTTP packet.This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2021-2276
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 confidenceA CWE-20 Improper Input Validation vulnerability in the HTTP server component of PowerLogic EGX100 (v3.0.0+) and EGX300 (all versions) industrial gateways allows remote attackers to send specially crafted HTTP packets that cause denial of service or achieve remote code execution due to insufficient validation of HTTP request data.
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 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
- 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 the device modelAccess the device web interface or check the physical device label to confirm the exact model number (PowerLogic EGX100 or EGX300)Affected if Device is not an EGX100 or EGX300 model, then not affected by this specific CVE
-
Determine the installed firmware versionLog into the device web interface or use the device management software to view the firmware version informationAffected if For EGX100: firmware version is 3.0.0 or higher. For EGX300: all versions are affected. If EGX100 is below 3.0.0, not affected
-
Verify HTTP server is enabledCheck the device configuration settings to confirm the HTTP server component is turned on. This is typically found in Network Settings or Server Settings in the device web interfaceAffected if HTTP server is disabled or not configured - the vulnerability requires the HTTP server to be active
-
Check network accessibility of HTTP serviceDetermine if the device HTTP port (default 80) is exposed to untrusted networks by reviewing firewall rules, network segmentation, or by scanning the device from external locationsAffected if HTTP service is accessible from untrusted networks - this increases exposure to remote exploitation
The device is affected if it is a PowerLogic EGX100 running firmware version 3.0.0 or higher, or any PowerLogic EGX300 version, with the HTTP server enabled 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 the vendor firmware update from Schneider Electric to address the input validation flaw. If no patch is available, consider network segmentation to restrict HTTP access to trusted sources only, as the attack vector is HTTP-based.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $8,608.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-22767 — 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-2021-22767 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