SShortSingh.
Back to feed

Thousands of Industrial Control Devices Found Exposed on Public Internet

0
·20 views

A ZoomEye scan conducted on September 20, 2026, detected over 10,500 records responding to industrial protocol fingerprints across three queries. Modbus accounted for the largest share with 9,820 records, followed by EtherNet/IP with 585 and Siemens S7 with 173, each showing distinct geographic distributions. These protocols were originally designed for isolated, air-gapped networks and lack native authentication or encryption in their base forms. Researchers cautioned that a reachable device does not automatically indicate a vulnerability or confirm it controls critical infrastructure, as test rigs and simulators can appear identical in such scans. The findings nonetheless highlight that internet exposure of legacy industrial protocols is a widespread, multi-regional concern requiring careful network architecture controls.

Read the full story at DEV Community

This is an AI-generated summary. ShortSingh links to the original source for the complete article.

Discussion (0)

Log in to join the discussion and vote.

Log in

Related stories

0
ProgrammingHacker News ·

Hacker News links to 1960 Science article on a 'doomsday' date in 2026

A Hacker News post links to a 1960 article from the journal Science, published under the title 'Doomsday: Friday, 13 November, A.D. 2026.' The item contains only the title and link, with no article text available to confirm the article's specific arguments or claims. The post received 6 points and no comments at the time it was captured. The date in the title is a calendar reference that the 1960 piece projected as a doomsday scenario. Readers should consult the original Science article for its full content.

0
ProgrammingDEV Community ·

JANISSARY: A Differential DAST Tool Aimed at Verified, Actionable Security Findings

A developer is building JANISSARY, a differential Dynamic Application Security Testing tool designed to make security testing results more meaningful and evidence-driven. The project separates initial discovery of unusual application behaviour from the verification of actual vulnerabilities. Its stated principles include transparency about whether outcomes are verified, unproven or inconclusive, and prioritising useful findings over sheer volume. The developer plans to share progress, technical decisions and lessons learned publicly via GitHub as the tool evolves.

0
ProgrammingDEV Community ·

INFINITT PACS System Manager Flaws Allow Local Privilege Escalation and Code Execution

CERT/CC published advisory VU#203719 on November 2, 2026, describing two code execution vulnerabilities in INFINITT PACS System Manager versions 3.0.11.3 and 3.0.11.5. The first, CVE-2026-16305, stems from weak file permissions on execlist.txt, which a low-privileged local user could modify so that an approved update runs added commands with administrative privileges. The second, CVE-2026-16306, affects the imodular:// URI handler in IModular.exe, which executes commands from crafted links without validating them, letting an attacker run code with the user's privileges when a victim opens a malicious link. INFINITT Healthcare lists versions 3.0.12.3 and 3.0.12.5 as fixed. The advisory reports no evidence of exploitation, but administrators are advised to check versions, file permissions and URI handler registration on PACS workstations. Interim measures include restricting local logons and shared use, limiting reachable network shares and blocking malicious URI links where possible.

0
ProgrammingDEV Community ·

Supreme Court to Hear Apple's Appeal in Epic Games Contempt Case

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on January 11, 2027, in Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc. The case concerns whether Apple should be held in civil contempt for allegedly violating the spirit of a court injunction that removed its commission on purchases made outside the App Store. Apple contends the injunction's wording did not explicitly bar commissions on external sales, while Epic argues the continued fees undermine the order's purpose. The Court will not decide whether Apple may charge such commissions, an issue still pending in lower courts. The ruling could set a precedent for how injunctions against major tech platforms are interpreted.