CVE-2021-35534
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 · uneditedInsufficient security control vulnerability in internal database access mechanism of Hitachi Energy Relion 670/650/SAM600-IO, Relion 650, GMS600, PWC600 allows attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability, of which the product does not sufficiently restrict access to an internal database tables, could allow anybody with user credentials to bypass security controls that is enforced by the product. Consequently, exploitation may lead to unauthorized modifications on data/firmware, and/or to permanently disabling the product. This issue affects: Hitachi Energy Relion 670 Series 2.0 all revisions; 2.2.2 all revisions; 2.2.3 versions prior to 2.2.3.5. Hitachi Energy Relion 670/650 Series 2.1 all revisions. 2.2.0 all revisions; 2.2.4 all revisions; Hitachi Energy Relion 670/650/SAM600-IO 2.2.1 all revisions; 2.2.5 versions prior to 2.2.5.2. Hitachi Energy Relion 650 1.0 all revisions. 1.1 all revisions; 1.2 all revisions; 1.3 versions prior to 1.3.0.8; Hitachi Energy GMS600 1.3.0; 1.3.0.1; 1.2.0. Hitachi Energy PWC600 1.0.1 version 1.0.1.4 and prior versions; 1.1.0 version 1.1.0.1 and prior versions.
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 Relion 670/650, SAM600-IO, GMS600, and PWC600 products contain an insufficient security control in their internal database access mechanism. The products do not adequately restrict access to internal database tables, allowing any authenticated user to bypass security controls enforced by the product. This broken access control enables unauthorized modifications to data/firmware or permanent disabling of the device.
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= 1.2.0= 1.3.0= 1.3.1.0all versions= 2.0.0= 2.1.0= 2.2.0= 2.2.1= 2.2.2= 2.2.3= 2.2.4= 2.2.5= 1.0.0= 1.1.0= 1.2.0= 1.3.0= 2.1.0= 2.2.0= 2.2.1= 2.2.4= 2.2.5= 2.2.1= 2.2.5= 1.0.1.0= 1.0.1.1= 1.0.1.3= 1.0.1.4= 1.1.0.0= 1.1.0.1CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/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 product modelAccess the device web interface or system information page to determine the exact product model (Gms600, Relion 670, Relion 650, Sam600 Io, or PWC600)Affected if The product is any of the five affected models listed in the CVE
-
Locate the firmware versionNavigate to the device settings, about page, or system status section in the web interface to find the installed firmware versionAffected if The firmware version cannot be determined or is not visible
-
Compare firmware version against affected Relion 670 versionsIf the product is Relion 670, note that ALL versions are affected per the CVEAffected if The product is Relion 670 with any firmware version
-
Compare firmware version against affected Relion 650 versionsIf the product is Relion 650, compare your version against: 1.0.0, 1.1.0, 1.2.0, 1.3.0, 2.1.0, 2.2.0, 2.2.1, 2.2.4, 2.2.5Affected if The installed version matches one of these listed versions
-
Compare firmware version against affected Gms600, Sam600 Io, or PWC600 versionsFor Gms600 check versions 1.2.0, 1.3.0, 1.3.1.0; for Sam600 Io check 2.2.1, 2.2.5; for PWC600 check 1.0.1.0, 1.0.1.1, 1.0.1.3, 1.0.1.4, 1.1.0.0, 1.1.0.1Affected if The installed version matches one of these listed versions
If the product is any of the five affected models and the firmware version matches the specific versions listed (or any version for Relion 670), the environment is affected by this broken access control vulnerability in the internal database.
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-supplied patches (Relion 670 2.2.3.5+, 2.2.5.2+; Relion 650 1.3.0.8+; PWC600 1.0.1.5+, 1.1.0.2+). If patching is not immediately feasible, implement compensating controls including network segmentation to limit exposure, strict access control lists, and monitoring for unauthorized database access attempts.
- 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-2021-35534 — 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-2021-35534 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