CVE-2025-20085
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 Modbus RTU over TCP functionality of Socomec DIRIS Digiware M-70 1.6.9. A specially crafted network packet can lead to denial of service and weaken credentials resulting in default documented credentials being applied to the device. An attacker can send an unauthenticated packet to trigger this vulnerability.
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 exists in the Modbus RTU over TCP functionality of Socomec DIRIS Digiware M-70 version 1.6.9. An unauthenticated attacker can send a specially crafted network packet to trigger the vulnerability, causing denial of service and weakening credentials to default documented values.
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= 1.6.9CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
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 device model is DIRIS M-70Access the device web interface or check the device label/documentation to verify the exact model is Socomec DIRIS Digiware M-70Affected if Device is not a DIRIS M-70 model
-
Check firmware versionLog into the device management interface or use the vendor-provided tool to retrieve the installed firmware version numberAffected if Firmware version equals 1.6.9 exactly
-
Verify Modbus RTU over TCP is enabledAccess the device configuration settings and look for Modbus RTU over TCP or Modbus TCP settings in the communication/network configuration sectionAffected if Modbus RTU over TCP functionality is enabled or configured on the device
-
Check network exposureReview network configuration to determine if the Modbus service port (typically port 502) is accessible from untrusted networksAffected if Modbus service is exposed to unauthenticated network attackers
A user is affected if they have a DIRIS M-70 device running firmware version 1.6.9 with Modbus RTU over TCP enabled and accessible on the network.
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 patch when available; until then, isolate affected devices on a restricted network segment with firewall rules limiting Modbus access to authorized systems only.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $7,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-20085 — 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-2025-20085 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