CVE-2024-2427
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 · uneditedA denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the Rockwell Automation PowerFlex® 527 due to improper traffic throttling in the device. If multiple data packets are sent to the device repeatedly the device will crash and require a manual restart to recover.
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 denial-of-service vulnerability exists in Rockwell Automation PowerFlex® 527 controllers where improper traffic throttling allows an attacker to crash the device by sending repeated data packets, requiring manual restart for recovery.
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>= 2.001CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Confirm PowerFlex 527 modelIdentify the controller model in your industrial network inventory or by accessing the device web interface/Studio 5000 Logix Designer project properties. Look for PowerFlex 527 in the device description or catalog number.Affected if The device is not a PowerFlex 527 controller - this CVE only affects that specific model line.
-
Check installed firmware versionAccess the device via web browser, RSLinx Classic, or Studio 5000 Logix Designer to view the firmware revision. Compare against the affected range of >= 2.001.Affected if Firmware version is 2.001 or higher - versions below 2.001 are not listed as affected in the provided advisory.
-
Assess network accessibilityReview network diagrams and firewall rules to determine if the controller is directly reachable from untrusted networks or the internet. Check if the device has a direct IP address accessible from outside the industrial zone.Affected if The controller is exposed to untrusted network segments without firewall protection - the attack requires sending repeated data packets to the device.
-
Verify traffic filtering configurationExamine network infrastructure (switches, firewalls, IDS/IPS) for any rate-limiting, traffic shaping, or packet throttling rules applied to traffic destined for the PowerFlex 527.Affected if No traffic throttling or rate-limiting is implemented between untrusted networks and the controller - the vulnerability exists precisely when throttling is absent.
You are affected if you have a PowerFlex 527 controller with firmware version 2.001 or higher that is accessible from network segments without traffic rate-limiting or firewall protection.
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 dataImplement network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict and rate-limit traffic to the device; monitor for anomalous traffic patterns; apply vendor firmware updates when available.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-2427 — 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-2024-2427 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