Safety Manager FirmwareOperating system · Honeywell

CVE-2022-30313

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2022-07-28
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager through 2022-05-06 has Missing Authentication for a Critical Function. According to FSCT-2022-0051, there is a Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager multiple proprietary protocols with unauthenticated functionality issue. The affected components are characterized as: Honeywell Experion TCP (51000/TCP), Safety Builder (51010/TCP). The potential impact is: Manipulate controller state, Manipulate controller configuration, Manipulate controller logic, Manipulate controller files, Manipulate IO. The Honeywell Experion PKS Distributed Control System (DCS) Safety Manager utilizes several proprietary protocols for a wide variety of functionality, including process data acquisition, controller steering and configuration management. These protocols include: Experion TCP (51000/TCP) and Safety Builder (51010/TCP). None of these protocols have any authentication features, allowing any attacker capable of communicating with the ports in question to invoke (a subset of) desired functionality. There is no authentication functionality on the protocols in question. An attacker capable of invoking the protocols' functionalities could achieve a wide range of adverse impacts, including (but not limited to), the following: for Experion TCP (51000/TCP): Issue IO manipulation commands, Issue file read/write commands; and for Safety Builder (51010/TCP): Issue controller start/stop commands, Issue logic download/upload commands, Issue file read commands, Issue system time change commands. A mitigating factor with regards to some, but not all, of the above functionality is that these require the Safety Manager physical keyswitch to be in the right position.

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 confidence

Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager through May 2022 contains proprietary protocols (Experion TCP on 51000/TCP and Safety Builder on 51010/TCP) that lack any authentication mechanisms. An attacker with network access to these ports can issue commands for IO manipulation, file read/write operations, controller start/stop, logic download/upload, and system time changes without any credentials.

MitigationImplement authentication on the affected proprietary protocols (this may require vendor-supplied patches or updates from Honeywell) and restrict network access to these ports via network segmentation or firewall rules. Physical keyswitch position provides partial mitigation for some functionality.

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
Safety Manager FirmwareOperating system
Affected:all versions

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify Honeywell Safety Manager on the network
    Scan network for devices running Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager by checking for响应 to probes on ports 51000/TCP and 51010/TCP, or check asset inventory for Honeywell Safety Manager firmware entries
    Affected if The device has Honeywell Safety Manager firmware running and responding on the network
  2. Check if Experion TCP port 51000/TCP is exposed
    Run a port scan against the target system to verify port 51000/TCP is open and accepting connections
    Affected if Port 51000/TCP is open and accessible from an untrusted network segment
  3. Check if Safety Builder port 51010/TCP is exposed
    Run a port scan against the target system to verify port 51010/TCP is open and accepting connections
    Affected if Port 51010/TCP is open and accessible from an untrusted network segment
  4. Verify network segmentation for exposed ports
    Review firewall rules, ACLs, or network zone assignments to determine if ports 51000/TCP and 51010/TCP can be accessed from network segments outside the trusted control system network
    Affected if These ports are reachable from business networks, DMZs, or external networks without proper access controls
  5. Confirm authentication is not implemented on proprietary protocols
    Attempt to issue a test command to ports 51000/TCP or 51010/TCP using the proprietary protocol without providing credentials, or review protocol documentation/configuration for authentication settings
    Affected if Commands can be issued to the controller without any authentication token or credential

The environment is affected if Honeywell Safety Manager is present with ports 51000/TCP or 51010/TCP accessible from any network segment that is not strictly isolated and protected by authentication controls.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement authentication on the affected proprietary protocols (this may require vendor-supplied patches or updates from Honeywell) and restrict network access to these ports via network segmentation or firewall rules. Physical keyswitch position provides partial mitigation for some functionality.

Fix this in Safety Manager Firmware Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation16.0 h
  • Implementation40.0 h
  • Testing24.0 h
  • Review / QA12.0 h
92.0 hours of engineering $16,160
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $25,856.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-30313 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2022-30313 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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