CVE-2024-5681
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 · uneditedCWE-20: Improper Input Validation vulnerability exists that could cause local denial-of-service, privilege escalation, and potentially kernel execution when a malicious actor with local user access crafts a script/program using an IOCTL call in the Foxboro.sys driver.
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 confidenceAn improper input validation vulnerability exists in the Foxboro.sys driver where a local user can craft malicious IOCTL calls to cause denial-of-service, escalate privileges to potentially execute code at the kernel level.
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<= 9.8CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/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 Ecostruxure Foxboro DCS versionLocate the Control Core Services installation and retrieve its version number (typically found in program files, installer details, or system services information)Affected if Installed version is 9.8 or lower (any version up to and including 9.8)
-
Locate Foxboro.sys driver fileSearch the system for the Foxboro.sys driver file - check common driver directories and any Schneider Electric installation pathsAffected if The Foxboro.sys driver file exists on the system
-
Verify driver file versionRight-click the Foxboro.sys file, select Properties, and examine the File Version fieldAffected if Driver file version corresponds to the vulnerable Control Core Services version (9.8 or lower)
-
Check if driver is loadedOpen Windows Device Manager or run 'sc query foxboro' command to check if the driver service is present and runningAffected if The Foxboro.sys driver service is present and loaded on the system
The system is affected if Foxboro.sys driver is present and the installed Ecostruxure Foxboro DCS Control Core Services version is 9.8 or lower.
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 the vendor-supplied patch or update to the Foxboro.sys driver; restrict access to the driver/device to minimize exposure to untrusted local users.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-5681 — 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-2024-5681 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