Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- The selected CVSS metric records a network-reachable, unauthenticated path with no user interaction.
- EPSS is 0.96% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2022
CVE-2022-30315High confidence
n/a — Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
Unknown · Unknown
9.8CriticalCVSS 3.1
Within 72 hours
Mitigation availableCritical technical impact with a remotely reachable, unauthenticated path; no CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityCritical→Operational priority:Critical, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Apply the linked authoritative mitigation while planning the permanent fix.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Unknown Unknown and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Critical technical impact with a remotely reachable, unauthenticated path; no CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
Mitigation available01
What, why and how
Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager (SM and FSC) through 2022-05-06 has Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity. According to FSCT-2022-0053, there is a Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager insufficient logic security controls issue. The affected components are characterized as: Honeywell FSC runtime (FSC-CPU, QPP), Honeywell Safety Builder. The potential impact is: Remote Code Execution, Denial of Service. The Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager family of safety controllers utilize the unauthenticated Safety Builder protocol (FSCT-2022-0051) for engineering purposes, including downloading projects and control logic to the controller. Control logic is downloaded to the controller on a block-by-block basis. The logic that is downloaded consists of FLD code compiled to native machine code for the CPU module (which applies to both the Safety Manager and FSC families). Since this logic does not seem to be cryptographically authenticated, it allows an attacker capable of triggering a logic download to execute arbitrary machine code on the controller's CPU module in the context of the runtime. While the researchers could not verify this in detail, the researchers believe that the microprocessor underpinning the FSC and Safety Manager CPU modules is incapable of offering memory protection or privilege separation capabilities which would give an attacker full control of the CPU module. There is no authentication on control logic downloaded to the controller. Memory protection and privilege separation capabilities for the runtime are possibly lacking. The researchers confirmed the issues in question on Safety Manager R145.1 and R152.2 but suspect the issue affects all FSC and SM controllers and associated Safety Builder versions regardless of software or firmware revision. An attacker who can communicate with a Safety Manager controller via the Safety Builder protocol can execute arbitrary code without restrictions on the CPU module, allowing for covert manipulation of control operations and implanting capabilities similar to the TRITON malware (MITRE ATT&CK software ID S1009). A mitigating factor with regards to some, but not all, of the above functionality is that these require the Safety Manager physical keyswitch to be in the right position.
What
Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager (SM and FSC) through 2022-05-06 has Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity. According to FSCT-2022-0053, there is a Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager insufficient logic security controls issue. The affected components are characterized as: Honeywell FSC runtime (FSC-CPU, QPP), Honeywell Safety Builder. The potential impact is: Remote Code Execution, Denial of Service. The Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager family of safety controllers utilize the unauthenticated Safety Builder protocol (FSCT-2022-0051) for engineering purposes, including downloading projects and control logic to the controller. Control logic is downloaded to the controller on a block-by-block basis. The logic that is downloaded consists of FLD code compiled to native machine code for the CPU module (which applies to both the Safety Manager and FSC families). Since this logic does not seem to be cryptographically authenticated, it allows an attacker capable of triggering a logic download to execute arbitrary machine code on the controller's CPU module in the context of the runtime. While the researchers could not verify this in detail, the researchers believe that the microprocessor underpinning the FSC and Safety Manager CPU modules is incapable of offering memory protection or privilege separation capabilities which would give an attacker full control of the CPU module. There is no authentication on control logic downloaded to the controller. Memory protection and privilege separation capabilities for the runtime are possibly lacking. The researchers confirmed the issues in question on Safety Manager R145.1 and R152.2 but suspect the issue affects all FSC and SM controllers and associated Safety Builder versions regardless of software or firmware revision. An attacker who can communicate with a Safety Manager controller via the Safety Builder protocol can execute arbitrary code without restrictions on the CPU module, allowing for covert manipulation of control operations and implanting capabilities similar to the TRITON malware (MITRE ATT&CK software ID S1009). A mitigating factor with regards to some, but not all, of the above functionality is that these require the Safety Manager physical keyswitch to be in the right position.
Why
The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
What
Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager (SM and FSC) through 2022-05-06 has Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity. According to FSCT-2022-0053, there is a Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager insufficient logic security controls issue. The affected components are characterized as: Honeywell FSC runtime (FSC-CPU, QPP), Honeywell Safety Builder. The potential impact is: Remote Code Execution, Denial of Service. The Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager family of safety controllers utilize the unauthenticated Safety Builder protocol (FSCT-2022-0051) for engineering purposes, including downloading projects and control logic to the controller. Control logic is downloaded to the controller on a block-by-block basis. The logic that is downloaded consists of FLD code compiled to native machine code for the CPU module (which applies to both the Safety Manager and FSC families). Since this logic does not seem to be cryptographically authenticated, it allows an attacker capable of triggering a logic download to execute arbitrary machine code on the controller's CPU module in the context of the runtime. While the researchers could not verify this in detail, the researchers believe that the microprocessor underpinning the FSC and Safety Manager CPU modules is incapable of offering memory protection or privilege separation capabilities which would give an attacker full control of the CPU module. There is no authentication on control logic downloaded to the controller. Memory protection and privilege separation capabilities for the runtime are possibly lacking. The researchers confirmed the issues in question on Safety Manager R145.1 and R152.2 but suspect the issue affects all FSC and SM controllers and associated Safety Builder versions regardless of software or firmware revision. An attacker who can communicate with a Safety Manager controller via the Safety Builder protocol can execute arbitrary code without restrictions on the CPU module, allowing for covert manipulation of control operations and implanting capabilities similar to the TRITON malware (MITRE ATT&CK software ID S1009). A mitigating factor with regards to some, but not all, of the above functionality is that these require the Safety Manager physical keyswitch to be in the right position.
Why
The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity → execute code or commands in the affected security context
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-345 ↗
CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity. The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- After compromise, an attacker may use built-in shells, scripting engines, scheduled tasks and native network utilities for discovery, persistence or movement. This is a plausible LoTL path, not evidence that it has occurred for every attack.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Mitigation available
- Affected
- n/a
- Action
- Apply the mitigation in the linked authoritative guidance while planning the vendor's permanent fix.
- Workaround
- A mitigation or workaround reference is available from the source linked below; validate it against the affected product and version.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 28 Jul 2022 · Last source change 3 Aug 2024, 06:48 UTC · CWE-345 · Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceNIST NVD
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2022-52264
Product sourceUnavailable
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceNIST NVD
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Missing structured fields: affected product. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
CVE published
Mitigation reference recorded
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.