CVE-2022-32138
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 · uneditedIn multiple CODESYS products, a remote attacker may craft a request which may cause an unexpected sign extension, resulting in a denial-of-service condition or memory overwrite.
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 confidenceA sign extension vulnerability in multiple CODESYS products allows remote attackers to send crafted requests that cause unexpected sign extension, leading to denial of service or memory overwrite conditions. This is a classic integer handling flaw in the underlying C/C++ code where signed values are improperly extended during arithmetic operations.
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>= 2.0, < 2.4.7.57>= 2.0, < 2.4.7.57CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Check if CODESYS Plcwinnt is installedOpen Windows Control Panel > Programs and Features, or use PowerShell: Get-ItemProperty 'HKLM:\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\*' | Where-Object {$_.DisplayName -like '*CODESYS*Plcwinnt*'} | Select-Object DisplayName, DisplayVersionAffected if The product is listed and the DisplayVersion is 2.0 or higher but lower than 2.4.7.57
-
Check if CODESYS Runtime Toolkit is installedOpen Windows Control Panel > Programs and Features, or use PowerShell: Get-ItemProperty 'HKLM:\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\*' | Where-Object {$_.DisplayName -like '*CODESYS*Runtime*Toolkit*'} | Select-Object DisplayName, DisplayVersionAffected if The product is listed and the DisplayVersion is 2.0 or higher but lower than 2.4.7.57
-
Verify exact version number via CODESYS interfaceLaunch the CODESYS development environment, go to Help > About CODESYS, or check the version info in the runtime installation directory if accessibleAffected if The displayed version falls within >= 2.0 and < 2.4.7.57
If either CODESYS Plcwinnt or Runtime Toolkit is installed with a version between 2.0 and 2.4.7.56 (inclusive), the environment is affected by this sign extension vulnerability.
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 · scoped2.4.7.57
Apply vendor patches for affected CODESYS products as they become available. Until then, network segmentation and restricting access to affected systems can reduce exposure to remote attackers.
2.4.7.57
- Upgrade Plcwinnt from any version >= 2.0 to version 2.4.7.57 or later
- Upgrade Runtime Toolkit from any version >= 2.0 to version 2.4.7.57 or later
- After upgrading, verify that the CODESYS services start正常运行 and test that normal PLC operations function correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-32138 — 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-2022-32138 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