CVE-2022-29492
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 in the handling of a malformed IEC 104 TCP packet in the Hitachi Energy MicroSCADA X SYS600, MicroSCADA Pro SYS600. Upon receiving a malformed IEC 104 TCP packet, the malformed packet is dropped, however the TCP connection is left open. This may cause a denial-of-service if the affected connection is left open. This issue affects: Hitachi Energy MicroSCADA Pro SYS600 version 9.4 FP2 Hotfix 4 and earlier versions Hitachi Energy MicroSCADA X SYS600 version 10 to version 10.3.1. cpe:2.3:a:hitachienergy:microscada_pro_sys600:9.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:a:hitachienergy:microscada_pro_sys600:9.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:a:hitachienergy:microscada_pro_sys600:9.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:a:hitachienergy:microscada_pro_sys600:9.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:a:hitachienergy:microscada_pro_sys600:9.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:a:hitachienergy:microscada_x_sys600:10:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:a:hitachienergy:microscada_x_sys600:10.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:a:hitachienergy:microscada_x_sys600:10.1.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:* 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 · high confidenceImproper input validation in Hitachi Energy MicroSCADA allows denial-of-service via malformed IEC 104 TCP packets. When the system receives a malformed IEC 104 packet, it drops the packet but fails to close the associated TCP connection, potentially leading to resource exhaustion and denial-of-service over time.
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>= 9.0, < 10.4CVSS 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.
-
Identify MicroSCADA X SYS600 installed versionCheck the installed version of Hitachi Energy MicroSCADA X Sys600 in the system registry, installation directory, or via the application about dialog. Compare the version number against the affected range >= 9.0 and < 10.4.Affected if The installed version falls within >= 9.0 and < 10.4
-
Verify IEC 104 protocol is enabledInspect the MicroSCADA configuration files or protocol settings to determine if the IEC 60870-5-104 (IEC 104) protocol driver is enabled and configured for data acquisition or control.Affected if IEC 104 protocol is enabled and actively listening on TCP ports (typically port 2404)
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 · scoped10.4
Apply vendor-supplied patches for MicroSCADA Pro SYS600 9.4 FP2 Hotfix 4 and earlier, and MicroSCADA X SYS600 10.3.1 and earlier. Consider implementing network-level connection monitoring to detect and terminate stale connections as a compensating control.
MicroSCADA Pro SYS600: upgrade to version newer than 9.4 FP2 Hotfix 4; MicroSCADA X SYS600: upgrade to version 10.4 or later
- 1. Identify the currently installed MicroSCADA X SYS600 or MicroSCADA Pro SYS600 version by checking the system documentation or software inventory.
- 2. Contact Hitachi Energy customer support or refer to officialABB product documentation to confirm the availability of version 10.4 or later which contains the fix for CVE-2022-29492.
- 3. Schedule a maintenance window for the upgrade, ensuring proper backup of system configurations and IEC 104 protocol settings.
- 4. Upgrade MicroSCADA Pro SYS600 to a version newer than 9.4 FP2 Hotfix 4, or upgrade MicroSCADA X SYS600 to version 10.4 or later.
- 5. After upgrading, verify that the IEC 104 TCP connection handling properly closes connections when malformed packets are received, preventing the denial-of-service condition.
- 6. Monitor the system for any connection anomalies and verify normal operation of IEC 104 communications.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing24.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $15,232.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-29492 — 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-2022-29492 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