CVE-2024-7515
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 · uneditedCVE-2024-7515 IMPACT A denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the affected products. A malformed PTP management packet can cause a major nonrecoverable fault in the controller.
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 in affected products where malformed PTP (Precision Time Protocol) management packets trigger a major nonrecoverable fault in the controller. The vulnerability stems from insufficient input validation or improper error handling when processing PTP management packets, causing the controller to enter a fault state from which it cannot recover.
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>= 28.011, < 34.014= 35.011>= 28.011, < 34.014= 35.011>= 31.011, < 34.014= 35.011>= 31.011, < 34.014= 35.011>= 32.013, < 34.014= 35.011>= 32.011, < 34.014= 35.011CVSS 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 PLC modelUse RSLinx Classic or FactoryTalk View to enumerate the controller. Look for Compactlogix 5380, Controllogix 5580, Guardlogix 5580, Compact Guardlogix 5380, or Compactlogix 5480 in the device tree.Affected if The device is one of these models.
-
Check firmware versionIn Studio 5000 Logix Designer, go to Controller Properties > General to view the firmware revision. Alternatively, use the web interface of the controller or RSLinx Classic device tree properties.Affected if The firmware version matches >= 28.011 and < 34.014, or equals exactly 35.011 (for Compactlogix 5380 or Controllogix 5580). For Guardlogix 5580 and Compact Guardlogix 5380 SIL-2, >= 31.011 and < 34.014 or = 35.011. For Compact Guardlogix 5380 SIL-3, >= 32.013 and < 34.014 or = 35.011. For Compactlog
-
Verify PTP configurationIn Studio 5000 Logix Designer, open the controller properties and look for IEEE 1588 / PTP settings under the Time Synchronization tab. Check if PTP is enabled on the controller or any associated Ethernet modules.Affected if PTP (Precision Time Protocol) is enabled on the controller.
-
Inspect network traffic for PTP packetsUse Wireshark or a network sniffer on the same VLAN as the controller to capture traffic. Filter for PTP packets using display filter 'ptp' or 'ptp_v2'. Look for incoming management packets destined to the controller.Affected if The controller is receiving PTP management packets on the network.
If the controller is an affected model, runs a firmware version within the vulnerable ranges, and has PTP enabled while receiving PTP management packets, the environment is affected by CVE-2024-7515.
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.
dbcve · scoped34.014
Implement proper input validation and bounds checking on incoming PTP management packets, and add robust exception handling to prevent malformed packets from causing nonrecoverable faults. Consider adding packet sanity checks before processing and implementing graceful degradation rather than fault states.
Firmware version 34.014 or later in the 34.x series, or 35.012 or later in the 35.x series
- Identify the specific controller model and current firmware version
- Obtain the fixed firmware version from Rockwell Automation's support website
- Back up the controller configuration before upgrading
- Apply the firmware update following Rockwell Automation's standard procedures for the specific controller model
- Verify the firmware was successfully updated to the fixed version
- Test controller operation to confirm normal functionality and that the PTP vulnerability is resolved
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2024-7515 — 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-2024-7515 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