CVE-2024-50955
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 · uneditedAn issue in how XINJE XD5E-24R and XL5E-16T v3.5.3b handles TCP protocol messages allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted TCP message.
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 XINJE XD5E-24R and XL5E-16T PLCs version 3.5.3b contain a vulnerability in their TCP protocol message handling routine. Attackers can send a specially crafted TCP packet that causes the device to crash or become unresponsive, resulting in denial of service. The vulnerability affects the PLC's network stack processing of incoming TCP messages.
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
- 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.
-
Identify the PLC modelCheck the device label, documentation, or network inventory for the specific model number - look for XD5E-24R or XL5E-16T designationsAffected if The device is an XINJE XD5E-24R or XL5E-16T PLC
-
Determine the firmware versionAccess the PLC configuration software or device web interface to retrieve the installed firmware version. Compare against version 3.5.3bAffected if The firmware version is 3.5.3b
-
Verify TCP network accessibilityScan the network for open TCP ports on the PLC device. Use a port scanner to check common industrial protocol portsAffected if The PLC has TCP ports exposed to untrusted networks
-
Check device responsivenessSend a test TCP packet to the PLC's open ports and observe whether the device responds normally or becomes unresponsiveAffected if The device crashes or becomes unresponsive when receiving crafted TCP packets
-
Review network segmentationInspect firewall rules and network boundaries to determine if the PLC's TCP ports are protected from unauthorized external sourcesAffected if The PLC TCP ports are accessible from untrusted network segments
A user is affected if they have an XINJE XD5E-24R or XL5E-16T PLC running firmware version 3.5.3b with exposed TCP ports accessible to untrusted networks.
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 dataApply vendor firmware updates when available. Until then, implement network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict unauthorized access to the PLC's TCP ports, limiting exposure to trusted sources only.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-50955 — 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-2024-50955 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