CVE-2025-13824VulnerabilityPublished 15 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-13824: Rockwell Automation Micro820®, Micro850®, Micro870® · Release of Invalid Pointer or Reference

Affects Rockwell Automation Micro820®, Micro850®, Micro870®Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.7 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.7High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: High
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 15 Dec 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-25.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Rockwell Automation Micro820®, Micro850®, Micro870®	Affected <=23.011	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Monitor Rockwell Automation's advisories closely for firmware updates or patches addressing CVE-2025-13824 and apply them promptly once available. 2. Implement strict network segmentation and access controls to isolate industrial control networks from general IT networks and the internet, minimizing exposure to malformed CIP packets. 3. Deploy intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) capable of identifying and blocking malformed CIP traffic patterns to prevent exploitation attempts. 4. Conduct regular network traffic analysis to detect anomalies or fuzzing attempts targeting CIP protocols. 5. Establish incident response procedures for rapid fault clearing and recovery to minimize downtime if exploitation occurs. 6. Train operational technology (OT) personnel to recognize fault indicators such as the red Fault LED and fault code 0xF019 for timely response. 7. Limit network access to trusted devices and users only, using strong authentication and encryption where possible to reduce attack vectors. 8. Consider implementing CIP protocol filtering or validation at network boundaries to reject malformed packets before reaching controllers.

Description

A security issue exists due to improper handling of malformed CIP packets during fuzzing. The controller enters a hard fault with solid red Fault LED and becomes unresponsive. Upon power cycle, the controller will enter recoverable fault where the MS LED and Fault LED become flashing red and reports fault code 0xF019. To recover, clear the fault.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-13824 is a denial-of-service condition on Rockwell Automation Micro820®, Micro850®, and Micro870® controllers, which are widely used in industrial automation and critical infrastructure sectors. For European organizations, this can translate into operational disruptions in manufacturing plants, utilities, and process control environments, potentially causing production downtime and safety risks. The fault state requires manual intervention to clear, increasing operational costs and downtime. Given the controllers' role in automation, prolonged unavailability could impact supply chains and critical services. The lack of authentication or user interaction for exploitation means attackers can remotely induce faults if they gain network access, increasing the threat surface. Although no known exploits exist yet, the vulnerability's high CVSS score and ease of exploitation make it a significant risk for European industrial operators relying on these devices.

CWE-763Release of Invalid Pointer or Reference (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product attempts to return a memory resource to the system, but it calls the wrong release function or calls the appropriate release function incorrectly.
Implementation
Only call matching memory management functions. Do not mix and match routines. For example, when you allocate a buffer with malloc(), dispose of the original pointer with free().
Implementation
When programming in C++, consider using smart pointers provided by the boost library to help correctly and consistently manage memory.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories/advisory.SD1766.html (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 22 Dec 2025, 15:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-763

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats