CVE-2022-30276
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 Motorola MOSCAD and ACE line of RTUs through 2022-05-02 omit an authentication requirement. They feature IP Gateway modules which allow for interfacing between Motorola Data Link Communication (MDLC) networks (potentially over a variety of serial, RF and/or Ethernet links) and TCP/IP networks. Communication with RTUs behind the gateway is done by means of the proprietary IPGW protocol (5001/TCP). This protocol does not have any authentication features, allowing any attacker capable of communicating with the port in question to invoke (a subset of) desired functionality.
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 confidenceMotorola MOSCAD and ACE RTU IP Gateway modules use the proprietary IPGW protocol on port 5001/TCP for communicating with downstream RTUs. This protocol lacks any authentication mechanism, allowing any attacker who can reach port 5001 to invoke a subset of RTU commands without credentials.
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 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/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 Motorola MOSCAD or ACE IP Gateway devices on the networkScan the network for devices with manufacturer OUI (Motorola) or check device inventory/asset management for MOSCAD or ACE 4600 gateway modulesAffected if Any MOSCAD or ACE IP Gateway device exists in the environment
-
Verify port 5001/TCP is open on suspected devicesRun a TCP port scan against target devices using nmap -p 5001 <target> or netcat nc -zv <target> 5001Affected if Port 5001/TCP returns as open on a Motorola MOSCAD or ACE gateway device
-
Confirm IPGW protocol response on port 5001Send a TCP probe to port 5001 and observe response; use nc <target> 5001 and watch for proprietary IPGW protocol banners or traffic patterns (no authentication challenge should appear)Affected if Port 5001 accepts connections without presenting any authentication or login prompt
-
Check network accessibility of port 5001Determine if port 5001 is reachable from untrusted network segments by reviewing firewall rules, ACLs, or performing external scans from non-trusted zonesAffected if Port 5001 is reachable from any network segment outside the trusted control center/SCADA network
The environment is affected if any Motorola MOSCAD or ACE IP Gateway device exists with port 5001/TCP exposed to a network segment accessible to untrusted actors, since the IPGW protocol accepts unauthenticated commands.
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 dataRestrict network access to port 5001/TCP through firewall rules or network segmentation to trusted hosts only. If possible, implement additional authentication layers or migrate to newer hardware with improved security features.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-30276 — 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-2022-30276 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