CVE-2024-9124
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® 600T. If the device is overloaded with requests, it will become unavailable. The device may require a power cycle to recover it if it does not re-establish a connection after it stops receiving requests.
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 the Rockwell Automation PowerFlex 600T allows attackers to render the device unavailable by overwhelming it with excessive requests, causing resource exhaustion that may necessitate a power cycle 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= 8.001= 8.002= 9.001CVSS 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 6000T modelAccess the device web interface, PLC programming software (Studio 5000), or check the physical device nameplate to verify the exact model number is PowerFlex 6000TAffected if The device model is PowerFlex 6000T
-
Check firmware versionAccess the device web interface, use RSLinx Classic or FactoryTalk Linx to connect and read the firmware version, or check via the device built-in web server under the Firmware or About sectionAffected if The firmware version equals 8.001, 8.002, or 9.001
-
Verify network accessibilityPing the device IP address and verify Ethernet/IP port 44818 is responding using network diagnostic tools or industrial protocol scannersAffected if The device has an active IP address and accepts network requests
-
Assess network exposureReview network segmentation, firewall rules, and access control lists to determine if the device can receive excessive requests from untrusted network segmentsAffected if The device is directly accessible from network segments without rate-limiting or access restrictions
A user is affected if they have a PowerFlex 6000T with firmware version 8.001, 8.002, or 9.001 that is network-accessible and potentially exposed to excessive inbound traffic
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 rate-limiting on the industrial network to restrict excessive incoming traffic to the device; monitor for availability issues and plan for firmware updates once Rockwell releases a patch.
- Consultation8.0 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 $9,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-9124 — 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-2024-9124 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