CVE-2022-25247
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 · uneditedAxeda agent (All versions) and Axeda Desktop Server for Windows (All versions) may allow an attacker to send certain commands to a specific port without authentication. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow a remote unauthenticated attacker to obtain full file-system access and remote code execution.
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 confidenceThe Axeda agent and Axeda Desktop Server for Windows contain an authentication bypass vulnerability allowing remote attackers to send commands to a specific service port without any credentials. Successful exploitation grants full file system access and remote code execution capabilities.
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< 6.9.1< 6.9.215CVSS 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 if Axeda services are installedOpen Windows Services (services.msc) and look for services named 'Axeda Agent', 'Axeda Desktop Server', or similar Axeda-related services. Alternatively, check Program Files for Axeda installation directories.Affected if Any Axeda agent or Axeda Desktop Server service is found on the system
-
Determine installed Axeda versionCheck the version of the installed Axeda software: (1) In Windows Services, right-click the service > Properties to view the version, or (2) Check the executable file properties (typically in C:\Program Files\PTC\Axeda\ or similar path) for version info, or (3) Query the Windows Registry under HKLM\SOFTWARE\PTC\Axeda for version keys.Affected if The version is lower than 6.9.1 for Axeda Agent or lower than 6.9.215 for Axeda Desktop Server
-
Verify if Axeda service is runningIn Windows Services, check if the Axeda Agent or Axeda Desktop Server service has a status of 'Running', or run 'sc query Axeda' from command prompt.Affected if The vulnerable service is currently running and accepting connections
-
Check network exposure of Axeda service portUse 'netstat -an | findstr LISTENING' to identify listening ports, or use PowerShell 'Get-NetTCPConnection -State Listen' to list all listening ports. Identify the port associated with the Axeda service (typically ports in the 3000-3500 range for Axeda, but verify against your specific installation).Affected if The Axeda service port is listening on a network-accessible IP address (0.0.0.0) rather than localhost only, especially on systems accessible from external networks
A system is affected if it runs Axeda Agent version below 6.9.1 or Axeda Desktop Server below 6.9.215, with the service port exposed to the network.
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 · scoped6.9.16.9.215
Implement network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict access to the affected service port; consider disabling the Axeda service if not required, as no patched version is specified.
Axeda Agent to version 6.9.1 or later; Axeda Desktop Server to version 6.9.215 or later
- Identify the currently installed Axeda product (Agent or Desktop Server) and its version on the affected Windows system
- For Axeda Agent: Download version 6.9.1 or later from PTC's official support portal or software distribution channel
- For Axeda Desktop Server: Download version 6.9.215 or later from PTC's official support portal or software distribution channel
- Follow PTC's standard upgrade procedure documentation for the specific Axeda product
- Stop the Axeda service before applying the upgrade if required by the documentation
- Apply the upgrade package to the affected system
- Restart the Axeda service after the upgrade completes
- Verify the installed version matches the target fixed version (6.9.1+ for Agent, 6.9.215+ for Desktop Server)
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-25247 — 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-2022-25247 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