CVE-2022-2179
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 · uneditedThe X-Frame-Options header in Rockwell Automation MicroLogix 1100/1400 Versions 21.007 and prior is not configured in the HTTP response, which could allow clickjacking attacks.
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 Rockwell Automation MicroLogix 1100/1400 PLC web servers in versions 21.007 and prior do not include the X-Frame-Options HTTP response header, which normally prevents the page from being rendered within frames or iframes. This missing header allows attackers to embed the PLC web interface in a transparent iframe on a malicious page and trick authenticated users into clicking invisible overlaid controls (clickjacking), potentially allowing unauthorized command injection on the industrial 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 dataall versions<= 21.007CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 MicroLogix PLC with web server enabledScan the network for devices running HTTP service on port 80/443. Look for HTTP banner responses containing 'MicroLogix' or 'Rockwell Automation' in the Server header.Affected if The device is a MicroLogix 1100 or 1400 PLC with its built-in web server enabled and accessible over HTTP.
-
Check firmware version on MicroLogix 1100Access the PLC web interface and navigate to the 'Properties' or 'Device Status' page. Alternatively, use RSLinx Classic or FactoryTalk Linx to query the PLC firmware version via CIP.Affected if The firmware version is any version (all versions of MicroLogix 1100 are affected).
-
Check firmware version on MicroLogix 1400Access the PLC web interface and navigate to the 'Properties' or 'Device Status' page. Alternatively, use RSLinx Classic or FactoryTalk Linx to query the PLC firmware version via CIP.Affected if The firmware version is 21.007 or lower.
-
Verify X-Frame-Options header is missingSend an HTTP GET request to the PLC web server (e.g., curl -I http://<PLC_IP>/). Inspect the response headers for the presence of X-Frame-Options, DENY, or SAMEORIGIN directives.Affected if The HTTP response does NOT contain any X-Frame-Options header, meaning the page can be embedded in iframes and is vulnerable to clickjacking.
The environment is affected if a MicroLogix 1100 (any version) or MicroLogix 1400 (version 21.007 or prior) has its web server enabled AND the HTTP responses lack the X-Frame-Options header.
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 dataConfigure the X-Frame-Options header (such as DENY or SAMEORIGIN) on the MicroLogix web server HTTP responses, or update to a firmware version that supports this security header. Alternatively, implement Content-Security-Policy: frame-ancestors as a modern replacement.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-2179 — 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-2022-2179 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