CVE-2022-1161
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 · uneditedAn attacker with the ability to modify a user program may change user program code on some ControlLogix, CompactLogix, and GuardLogix Control systems. Studio 5000 Logix Designer writes user-readable program code to a separate location than the executed compiled code, allowing an attacker to change one and not the other.
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 confidenceStudio 5000 Logix Designer writes user-readable source code to a separate location than the compiled executable code. An attacker who can modify a user program on affected ControlLogix, CompactLogix, or GuardLogix controllers can change one version without affecting the other, allowing malicious code to be injected that appears legitimate in the source view but executes differently.
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 dataall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall 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 controller model and firmware versionConnect to the controller via RSLinx Classic or FactoryTalk Linx and retrieve the controller properties. In Studio 5000 Logix Designer, go to Controller Properties to view the catalog number and firmware version. Alternatively, use the web interface of the controller if available, or query via CIP (Common Industrial Protocol) to read the identity object.Affected if The controller model matches any of the following: 1768 L43, 1768 L45, 1769 L31, 1769 L32c, 1769 L32e, 1769 L35cr, 1769 L35e, or 5370 L3, with any firmware version.
-
Verify Studio 5000 Logix Designer is usedCheck if the programming workstation has Studio 5000 Logix Designer installed. Review recent project files (ACD files) and confirm they were created or edited using Studio 5000 Logix Designer.Affected if Studio 5000 Logix Designer is used to program the controller.
-
Compare source code against controller logicIn Studio 5000 Logix Designer, upload the program from the controller. Then compare the uploaded logic (the compiled executable that resides in the controller) against the source project file on the workstation. Look for any differences in ladder logic, routine names, or instruction sequences that were not intentionally made.Affected if The source code on the workstation differs from the logic actually residing in the controller, indicating source and compiled code have diverged.
-
Inspect for unauthorized program modificationsReview the controller's project history or change log if available. Check the controller's owner and creator tags in the project properties. Verify that all program modifications were made by authorized personnel and match the expected development workflow.Affected if There are unexpected or unauthorized changes to the program that cannot be attributed to known legitimate modifications.
A defender is affected if they use any CompactLogix controller model listed (1768 L43, 1768 L45, 1769 Lxx, or 5370 L3) with Studio 5000 Logix Designer, and if source code stored separately from compiled code has diverged, indicating potential code injection.
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 from Rockwell Automation; restrict access to programming workstations and engineering stations; implement network segmentation to limit exposure of industrial control systems; verify code integrity before loading programs onto controllers.
- Consultation12.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing16.0 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 $16,896.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-1161 — 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-2022-1161 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