VulnerabilityPublished 18 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-22323: Phoenix Contact FL SWITCH 2005 · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Affects Phoenix Contact FL SWITCH 2005Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High : upgrade to 3.53 soon.

Data as of 1 Nov 2026, 08:20 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 8% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.53

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
Availability: Low

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, 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: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 18 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 31 Oct 2026.

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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity 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

Upgrade FL to 3.53.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Phoenix ContactFL SWITCH 2005	Affected <3.53	Fixed in 3.53
Phoenix ContactFL SWITCH 2008	Affected <3.53	Fixed in 3.53
Phoenix ContactFL SWITCH 2016	Affected <3.53	Fixed in 3.53
Phoenix ContactFL SWITCH 2105	Affected <3.53	Fixed in 3.53
Phoenix ContactFL SWITCH 2108	Affected <3.53	Fixed in 3.53
Phoenix ContactFL SWITCH 2116	Affected <3.53	Fixed in 3.53

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Restrict access to the FL SWITCH 2005 management interface to trusted networks and users only, ideally via VPN or isolated management VLANs. 2) Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) or intrusion prevention systems (IPS) to detect and block suspicious POST requests targeting the device's configuration interface. 3) Educate users with access to the device management interface about the risks of visiting untrusted websites while authenticated. 4) Implement browser security controls such as SameSite cookies and Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to reduce CSRF risks where possible. 5) Monitor device configuration changes closely and maintain logs to detect unauthorized modifications promptly. 6) Engage with Phoenix Contact for firmware updates or patches addressing this vulnerability and apply them as soon as available. 7) Consider multi-factor authentication or additional authentication mechanisms if supported by the device to reduce the risk of unauthorized configuration changes. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on network segmentation, user education, and proactive monitoring tailored to this device and vulnerability.

Description

A CSRF vulnerability in the Link Aggregation configuration interface allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to trick authenticated users into sending unauthorized POST requests to the device by luring them to a malicious webpage. This can silently alter the device’s configuration without the victim’s knowledge or consent. Availability impact was set to low because after a successful attack the device will automatically recover without external intervention.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is on the integrity of the Phoenix Contact FL SWITCH 2005 device's configuration. Unauthorized changes to Link Aggregation settings can disrupt network traffic flow, degrade performance, or create network segmentation issues, potentially facilitating further attacks such as man-in-the-middle or denial of service. Although availability impact is low due to automatic recovery, repeated or targeted exploitation could cause intermittent network instability. Organizations relying on these switches in industrial control systems, manufacturing environments, or critical infrastructure may face operational disruptions, increased risk of lateral movement by attackers, and potential compliance violations. The silent nature of the attack means administrators may remain unaware of unauthorized changes, complicating incident response and forensic analysis.

CWE-352Cross-Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Compound weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #3OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
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.
Implementation
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
Architecture and Design
Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Identification (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

certvde.com/de/advisories/VDE-2025-104 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 18 Mar 2026, 07:57 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats