CVE-2022-1965
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 · uneditedMultiple products of CODESYS implement a improper error handling. A low privilege remote attacker may craft a request, which is not properly processed by the error handling. In consequence, the file referenced by the request could be deleted. User interaction is not required.
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 · moderate confidenceMultiple CODESYS products contain improper error handling that allows a remote low-privilege attacker to delete arbitrary files referenced by specially crafted requests without user interaction.
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>= 2.0, < 2.4.7.57>= 2.0, < 2.4.7.57CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 installed CODESYS productCheck system for presence of Codesys Plcwinnt or Codesys Runtime Toolkit by reviewing installed software listings, service entries, or product documentationAffected if Either Codesys Plcwinnt or Codesys Runtime Toolkit is installed
-
Determine installed versionUse the product's built-in version information feature, check installed package details, or review product documentation for version locationAffected if Installed version falls within range >= 2.0 and < 2.4.7.57
-
Verify network exposureCheck if the CODESYS product is configured to accept remote network connections or is accessible from network segmentsAffected if The product is network-accessible and receives remote requests
-
Confirm web interface or API is enabledReview product configuration for enabled web services, REST APIs, or similar interfaces that process incoming requestsAffected if Web interface or API service is enabled and processing requests
User is affected if Codesys Plcwinnt or Codesys Runtime Toolkit version is >= 2.0 and < 2.4.7.57, and the product is configured to accept remote connections
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.
dbcve · scoped2.4.7.57
Apply vendor-supplied patches or updates to all affected CODESYS installations to remediate the improper error handling vulnerability.
2.4.7.57
- Identify the installed CODESYS product (Plcwinnt or Runtime Toolkit) and confirm the current version is >= 2.0 and < 2.4.7.57
- Obtain the fixed version 2.4.7.57 from the official CODESYS download source (customers.codesys.com)
- Backup all current configurations and project files before proceeding with the upgrade
- Install version 2.4.7.57 or later following the standard CODESYS installation procedure
- Verify the installation was successful and confirm the version number post-upgrade
- Test critical functionality to ensure the upgrade did not introduce regressions
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-1965 — 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-2022-1965 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