CVE-2023-22807
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 · uneditedLS ELECTRIC XBC-DN32U with operating system version 01.80 does not properly control access to the PLC over its internal XGT protocol. An attacker could control and tamper with the PLC by sending the packets to the PLC over its XGT protocol.
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 confidenceThe LS ELECTRIC XBC-DN32U PLC with OS version 01.80 has improper access control for its XGT protocol, allowing unauthenticated attackers to send specially crafted packets that can control and tamper with the PLC logic and operation.
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= 01.80CVSS 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 the PLC modelCheck the physical label on the PLC unit or access the PLC configuration software to confirm the model is XBC-DN32UAffected if The device is not an XBC-DN32U unit
-
Check the firmware versionConnect to the PLC using LS ELECTRIC programming software (such as Xgate or XEL) and navigate to the system information or firmware version display to confirm OS version 01.80 is installedAffected if The firmware version is exactly 01.80
-
Verify XGT protocol accessibilityCheck if port 2004 (default XGT protocol port) is open and listening on the PLC network interface using a port scanner or by reviewing network configurationAffected if Port 2004/2005 is exposed to unauthorized network segments
-
Assess network exposureReview network firewall rules and VLAN configurations to determine if the PLC is accessible from unauthorized network segments or the external networkAffected if The PLC is reachable from network segments that do not contain trusted engineering workstations only
You are affected if you have an XBC-DN32U PLC running OS version 01.80 with XGT protocol exposed to untrusted network segments
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 dataIsolate the PLC behind a network firewall or air-gap, restrict XGT protocol access to authorized engineering stations only, and apply any vendor firmware updates when available.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $11,776.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-22807 — 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-2023-22807 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