CVE-2024-1916
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 · uneditedInteger Overflow or Wraparound vulnerability in Mitsubishi Electric Corporation MELSEC-Q Series and MELSEC-L Series CPU modules allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to execute malicious code on a target product by sending a specially crafted packet.
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 confidenceInteger overflow vulnerability in Mitsubishi MELSEC-Q and MELSEC-L Series CPU modules allows remote unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary code by sending specially crafted network packets, potentially compromising the entire PLC system.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
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
- 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 hardware modelLocate the CPU module physically or check system documentation to confirm it is a Mitsubishi MELSEC-Q or MELSEC-L Series model. Note the exact model number printed on the CPU module or in the engineering software project file.Affected if The installed hardware is a Mitsubishi MELSEC-Q or MELSEC-L Series CPU module.
-
Determine the firmware versionAccess the CPU module via GX Works2 or GX Works3 engineering software, or check the system information in the PLC programming environment to retrieve the firmware version. Compare this version against any released patches from Mitsubishi for CVE-2024-1916.Affected if The firmware version has not been patched to address the integer overflow vulnerability.
-
Check network exposure of PLC communication portsUse network scanning tools (such as nmap) or check firewall rules to determine if ports used by MELSEC protocols (typically TCP/5000-5002, UDP/5000-5001, or vendor-specified ports) are accessible from external networks or the enterprise LAN.Affected if The PLC CPU module network ports are reachable from untrusted networks without firewall protection.
-
Verify if MELSEC protocol communications are enabledReview the CPU module configuration in GX Works2/3 or the PLC parameter settings to confirm that MELSEC protocol communications (Ethernet, MC protocol, or built-in Ethernet) are enabled and active.Affected if MELSEC Ethernet protocol is enabled and the module is network-connected, exposing the attack surface.
A user is affected if their environment contains a Mitsubishi MELSEC-Q or MELSEC-L CPU module with an unpatched firmware version and exposed network accessibility to MELSEC protocol ports.
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 affected CPU modules behind network firewalls or air gaps, block external access to PLC communication ports, and apply vendor patches when available; implement network monitoring for anomalous packet patterns.
- Consultation4.0 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 $7,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-1916 — 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-2024-1916 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