CVE-2022-25159
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 · uneditedAuthentication Bypass by Capture-replay vulnerability in Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC iQ-F series FX5U(C) CPU all versions, Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC iQ-F series FX5UJ CPU all versions, Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC iQ-R series R00/01/02CPU all versions, Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC iQ-R series R04/08/16/32/120(EN)CPU all versions, Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC iQ-R series R08/16/32/120SFCPU all versions, Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC iQ-R series R08/16/32/120PCPU all versions, Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC iQ-R series R08/16/32/120PSFCPU all versions, Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC iQ-R series R16/32/64MTCPU all versions, Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC iQ-R series RJ71C24(-R2/R4) all versions, Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC iQ-R series RJ71EN71 all versions, Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC iQ-R series RJ72GF15-T2 all versions, Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC Q series Q03/04/06/13/26UDVCPU all versions, Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC Q series Q04/06/13/26UDPVCPU all versions, Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC Q series QJ71C24N(-R2/R4) all versions and Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC Q series QJ71E71-100 all versions allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to login to the product by replay attack.
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 confidenceThis is a capture-replay authentication bypass vulnerability affecting multiple Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC PLC series (iQ-F, iQ-R, and Q series). An attacker can capture valid authentication credentials or session tokens during a legitimate session and replay them to bypass authentication and gain unauthorized remote access to the affected devices.
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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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 affected MELSEC PLC models on the networkInventory network devices to locate Mitsubishi Electric MELSEC PLCs, specifically the FX5uc and FX5uj series models listed in the CVE (FX5uc, FX5uc 32mr/ds, FX5uc 32mt/d, FX5uc 32mt/dss, FX5uj 24mr/es, FX5uj 24mt/es, FX5uj 24mt/ess, FX5uj 40mr/es). Use network scanning tools or asset management databases to find these devices.Affected if Any of the listed FX5uc or FX5uj PLC models are present on the network.
-
Verify device is network accessibleCheck if the identified PLC devices have active Ethernet or MELSOFT communication ports open (typically port 5007 for MELSOFT). Use network scanning to determine if the device accepts remote connections.Affected if The PLC device accepts remote network connections on MELSOFT or Ethernet ports.
-
Assess network exposure of PLC devicesReview firewall rules, access control lists, and network segmentation to determine if the PLC is accessible from untrusted networks or the internet. Check if the device is directly exposed or behind adequate access controls.Affected if The PLC is accessible from untrusted networks or the internet without IP-based access restrictions.
-
Confirm authentication method in useDetermine if the PLC uses standard MELSOFT authentication or session-based authentication without replay protection. Review device configuration and communication logs for authentication patterns.Affected if The device uses standard authentication that does not implement replay protection or session token randomization.
A user is affected if they have any of the listed Mitsubishi Electric FX5uc or FX5uj PLC models exposed to network access where captured credentials or session tokens could be replayed by an attacker.
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 firmware updates when available. In the interim, network segmentation and restricting access to trusted IP addresses only can reduce exposure to remote attackers.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-25159 — 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-2022-25159 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