CVE-2025-40944
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 vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC ET 200AL IM 157-1 PN (6ES7157-1AB00-0AB0) (All versions), SIMATIC ET 200MP IM 155-5 PN HF (6ES7155-5AA00-0AC0) (All versions >= V4.2.0), SIMATIC ET 200SP IM 155-6 MF HF (6ES7155-6MU00-0CN0) (All versions), SIMATIC ET 200SP IM 155-6 PN HA (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions < V1.3), SIMATIC ET 200SP IM 155-6 PN R1 (6ES7155-6AU00-0HM0) (All versions < V6.0.1), SIMATIC ET 200SP IM 155-6 PN/2 HF (6ES7155-6AU01-0CN0) (All versions >= V4.2.0 < V4.2.5), SIMATIC ET 200SP IM 155-6 PN/3 HF (6ES7155-6AU30-0CN0) (All versions < V4.2.2), SIMATIC PN/MF Coupler (6ES7158-3MU10-0XA0) (All versions), SIMATIC PN/PN Coupler (6ES7158-3AD10-0XA0) (All versions < V6.0.0), SIPLUS ET 200MP IM 155-5 PN HF (6AG1155-5AA00-2AC0) (All versions >= V4.2.0), SIPLUS ET 200MP IM 155-5 PN HF (6AG1155-5AA00-7AC0) (All versions >= V4.2.0), SIPLUS ET 200MP IM 155-5 PN HF T1 RAIL (6AG2155-5AA00-1AC0) (All versions >= V4.2.0), SIPLUS ET 200SP IM 155-6 PN HF (6AG1155-6AU01-2CN0) (All versions >= V4.2.0 < V4.2.5), SIPLUS ET 200SP IM 155-6 PN HF (6AG1155-6AU01-7CN0) (All versions >= V4.2.0 < V4.2.5), SIPLUS ET 200SP IM 155-6 PN HF T1 RAIL (6AG2155-6AU01-1CN0) (All versions >= V4.2.0 < V4.2.5), SIPLUS ET 200SP IM 155-6 PN HF TX RAIL (6AG2155-6AU01-4CN0) (All versions >= V4.2.0 < V4.2.5), SIPLUS NET PN/PN Coupler (6AG2158-3AD10-4XA0) (All versions < V6.0.0). Affected devices do not properly handle S7 protocol session disconnect requests. When receiving a valid S7 protocol Disconnect Request (COTP DR TPDU) on TCP port 102, the devices enter an improper session state. This could allow an attacker to cause the device to become unresponsive, leading to a denial-of-service condition that requires a power cycle to restore normal operation.
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 confidenceAffected Siemens SIMATIC ET 200 devices (ET 200AL, ET 200MP, ET 200SP, PN/MF Coupler, PN/PN Coupler and SIPLUS variants) do not properly handle S7 protocol session disconnect requests. When receiving a valid S7 protocol Disconnect Request (COTP DR TPDU) on TCP port 102, the devices enter an improper session state, causing them to become unresponsive and requiring a power cycle to restore normal operation.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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 ET 200 device inventoryLocate all SIMATIC ET 200 devices on the network (ET 200AL, ET 200MP, ET 200SP, PN/MF Coupler, PN/PN Coupler, SIPLUS variants) by reviewing engineering software projects, network scans, or physical asset listsAffected if Any of the listed ET 200 model families are present in the environment
-
Determine device firmware versionsAccess each device via TIA Portal, web server, or device labeling to retrieve the current firmware version; compare against any vendor-released version information for this CVEAffected if The installed firmware version falls within the vulnerable version range published by Siemens for this CVE
-
Verify TCP port 102 accessibilityScan network segments for devices listening on TCP port 102 (S7 communication) using tools like nmap: nmap -p 102 <target>Affected if TCP port 102 is open and reachable on the ET 200 devices
-
Assess network exposure of port 102Review firewall rules, VLAN configurations, and access control lists to determine if TCP port 102 is exposed to untrusted networks or external interfacesAffected if Port 102 is accessible from less-trusted network segments or the internet without proper filtering
-
Check for device responsiveness anomaliesIf devices are suspected, verify normal operation by attempting S7 communication via TIA Portal or testing basic read/write requests to the deviceAffected if Devices fail to respond to S7 protocol queries or show unexpected unresponsiveness after any recent network events involving port 102
The environment is affected if any Siemens SIMATIC ET 200 devices (ET 200AL, ET 200MP, ET 200SP, PN/MF Coupler, PN/PN Coupler, or SIPLUS variants) with vulnerable firmware are reachable on TCP port 102.
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 available vendor firmware updates. Until patches are available, implement network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict unauthorized access to TCP port 102, and monitor for signs of exploitation that may indicate attempted DoS conditions.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-40944 — 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-2025-40944 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