CVE-2022-2277
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 · uneditedImproper Input Validation vulnerability exists in the Hitachi Energy MicroSCADA X SYS600's ICCP stack during the ICCP communication establishment causes a denial-of-service when ICCP of SYS600 is request to forward any data item updates with timestamps too distant in the future to any remote ICCP system. By default, ICCP is not configured and not enabled. This issue affects: Hitachi Energy MicroSCADA X SYS600 version 10.2 to version 10.3.1. cpe:2.3:a:hitachienergy:microscada_x_sys600:10.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:a:hitachienergy:microscada_x_sys600:10.2.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:a:hitachienergy:microscada_x_sys600:10.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:a:hitachienergy:microscada_x_sys600:10.3.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
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 confidenceImproper input validation in the ICCP (Inter-Control Center Protocol) stack of Hitachi Energy MicroSCADA X SYS600 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial-of-service by sending data item updates with timestamps excessively distant in the future during ICCP communication establishment. The vulnerability affects versions 10.2 through 10.3.1, though ICCP is disabled by default.
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>= 10.2, <= 10.3.1CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Check installed MicroSCADA X SYS600 versionLocate the version information for the installation, typically found in the system information panel, about dialog, or product documentationAffected if The installed version is 10.2, 10.3, 10.3.1, or any version between 10.2 and 10.3.1 inclusive
-
Confirm version is within affected rangeCompare your installed version against the affected range of >= 10.2 and <= 10.3.1Affected if The version falls within 10.2 through 10.3.1 inclusive
-
Locate ICCP configuration settingsAccess the MicroSCADA X SYS600 configuration interface or configuration files where ICCP protocol settings are definedAffected if ICCP configuration settings exist and the protocol is enabled
-
Verify ICCP is enabledInspect the ICCP configuration to determine whether the Inter-Control Center Protocol is currently activatedAffected if ICCP is explicitly enabled in the product configuration
You are affected if your MicroSCADA X SYS600 version is between 10.2 and 10.3.1 AND ICCP protocol is enabled in your configuration.
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 dataSince ICCP is not enabled by default, organizations can mitigate by ensuring ICCP remains disabled unless explicitly required. Otherwise, apply vendor-provided patches when available and implement network segmentation to limit ICCP exposure to trusted control centers.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $14,080.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-2277 — 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-2022-2277 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