CVE-2025-11783
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 · uneditedStack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in Circutor SGE-PLC1000/SGE-PLC50 v9.0.2. The vulnerability is found in the 'AddEvent()' function when copying the user-controlled username input to a fixed-size buffer (48 bytes) without boundary checking. This can lead to memory corruption, resulting in possible remote code execution.
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 confidenceStack-based buffer overflow in Circutor SGE-PLC1000/SGE-PLC50 v9.0.2 in the AddEvent() function. The username parameter is copied to a fixed 48-byte stack buffer without boundary checking, allowing memory corruption and potential remote code execution.
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= 9.0.2= 9.0.2CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Identify device modelDetermine if the target device is a Circutor SGE-PLC1000 or SGE-PLC50 by checking the device label, web interface banner, or SNMP/sysinfo response.Affected if Device is not one of these two models
-
Check firmware versionQuery the device web interface, administrative console, or firmware version API endpoint to retrieve the installed firmware version.Affected if Firmware version is exactly 9.0.2
-
Verify AddEvent function is accessibleCheck if the web service or API endpoint that exposes the AddEvent() function is accessible from the network. This may be a web form, REST endpoint, or similar interface that accepts a username parameter.Affected if The AddEvent function interface is exposed and accepts user input
-
Confirm the username field accepts oversized inputIf the AddEvent interface is accessible, verify whether the username parameter accepts input exceeding 48 characters without proper boundary validation.Affected if The username parameter allows input longer than 48 characters
The environment is affected only if the device is a Circutor SGE-PLC1000 or SGE-PLC50 running firmware version 9.0.2 AND the AddEvent() function is accessible with the username parameter accepting oversized input.
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 update when available. Until then, restrict network access to the PLC and implement input validation at network boundaries to block oversized username payloads.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 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 $10,240.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-11783 — 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-2025-11783 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