CVE-2024-8894: Siemens COMOS at Risk from ODA SDK Exploit

Siemens' COMOS engineering platform is again at the center of vendor and national cybersecurity advisories after an out‑of‑bounds write in a third‑party graphics library — tracked as CVE‑2024‑8894 — was linked to COMOS deployments and republished by authorities, raising fresh questions about supply‑chain risk, patching responsibilities, and how industrial operators should prioritize mitigation in mixed IT/OT environments. (nvd.nist.gov)

Background: what happened and why it matters​

Siemens COMOS is a widely used engineering data platform in the critical manufacturing and process industries. In late 2024 a buffer‑corruption flaw in the Open Design Alliance (ODA) Drawings SDK — a common third‑party component used to parse DWF/DWG drawing files — was disclosed and assigned CVE‑2024‑8894. The vulnerability arises when a specially crafted DWF file is parsed and SectionIterator data lacks proper bounds checks; the behavior can result in an unhandled exception that may cause a crash and, under certain conditions, lead to code execution. (nvd.nist.gov, tenable.com)
National and vendor advisories have relayed the issue to COMOS customers because many COMOS installations use the affected ODA components for handling design files. U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) entries and Siemens ProductCERT advisories have been used to inform administrators about affected product families, mitigations, and remediation timelines. Notably, CISA has stated that it will not continue to maintain rolling updates for Siemens product advisories beyond initial notifications; instead, Siemens ProductCERT is the canonical, continuously updated home for remediation guidance. Operators should take that policy change into account when planning vulnerability‑management workflows. (cisa.gov)

---

Executive summary — the critical facts​

• Vulnerability: Out‑of‑bounds Write in the Open Design Alliance Drawings SDK used by COMOS; tracked as CVE‑2024‑8894. (nvd.nist.gov, tenable.com)
• Technical impact: parsing a crafted DWF file can trigger an unhandled exception (crash) and may enable denial‑of‑service and possible code execution depending on exploitation chain. (nvd.nist.gov)
• Severity and scoring: public trackers show high severity under CVSSv4 (Open Design Alliance / CNA calculations show CVSSv4 ≈ 8.1) and NVD/third‑party feeds list variations; vendor and downstream CVSS vectors can differ by CNA. Administrators should treat the issue as high‑impact in production OT environments. (tenable.com, nvd.nist.gov)
• Affected COMOS versions: vendor advisories and republished notices list multiple version thresholds (some advisories indicate versions prior to V10.5 or V10.6), producing discrepancies operators must resolve by consulting Siemens ProductCERT for their exact product build. Do not assume uniform versioning across advisories. (cisa.gov)
• Immediate mitigation: treat untrusted DWF/DWG inputs as hostile, restrict file import paths, and apply vendor updates where available (Siemens ProductCERT / support channels). CISA and Siemens emphasize network segmentation, removing internet exposure for control systems, and standard OT hardening controls. (cisa.gov)

---

Technical overview: how CVE‑2024‑8894 works​

The vulnerable component: Open Design Alliance Drawings SDK​

The root cause lives in the ODA Drawings SDK — a commercial/third‑party library used to read and process CAD drawing formats such as DWF. The SDK's SectionIterator handling can accept malformed data from a crafted DWF and fail to validate bounds before use, triggering CWE‑787: Out‑of‑bounds Write. When such logic executes inside the COMOS process (for example, during file import or preview generation), an attacker‑controlled file becomes a plausible local or adjacent‑network attack vector. (nvd.nist.gov, tenable.com)

Attack vectors and exploitation model​

• File import attack: an operator opens or imports a malicious DWF file (user interaction required in many cases). This is consistent with a CVSS vector indicating user interaction may be necessary. The attacker crafts the file so the SDK writes outside a buffer and corrupts memory. (nvd.nist.gov)
• Adjacent‑network scenarios: if file shares, email attachments, or network locations are accessible to operator workstations, an attacker with low‑level access (‘adjacent network’ or compromised workstation) could place a malicious file to be opened later. (tenable.com)
• Exploit outcomes: primary outcomes include crash/DoS (most likely), but with favorable memory layout and additional primitives an attacker might obtain code execution inside the COMOS process. The practical feasibility of remote exploitation depends heavily on local configuration, privileges, and whether COMOS components run with elevated rights. (nvd.nist.gov, tenable.com)

Why this matters in industrial settings​

COMOS handles engineering data and is often integrated into engineering workstations, project servers, and document repositories. Unlike single‑purpose desktop apps, crashes or compromises in engineering platforms can affect design integrity, cause workflow disruption, delay maintenance, and — in worst cases — lead to configuration changes that propagate into PLC programming or process documentation. OT environments typically tolerate less frequent patching cycles and have unique availability constraints, making preemptive mitigation and careful testing essential. (cisa.gov)

---

Conflicting version and scoring statements — what to watch for​

Multiple advisories and trackers do not always agree about the precise affected product versions or the CVSS vector used to calculate severity. For example:

• Public CVE/NVD and third‑party trackers list CVE‑2024‑8894 and provide CNA‑supplied CVSS calculations (CVSSv4 provided by ODA and NVD records vary). (nvd.nist.gov, tenable.com)
• CISA and Siemens ProductCERT postings that reference COMOS list affected versions with different thresholds in different advisories (e.g., some CISA entries indicate “all versions prior to V10.5” while vendor notices referenced in other feeds describe “prior to V10.6”). These inconsistencies can stem from staggered vendor fixes, staggered advisory republications, or differences in the scope of the advisory (e.g., which COMOS module uses the ODA SDK). Administrators must reconcile these by checking the precise build numbers installed in their environment against the vendor's ProductCERT entry for their product line. (cisa.gov)

Flagging these discrepancies is important because patch programs that rely on a single external feed can misclassify affected systems. Always use the vendor's ProductCERT advisory for final remediation information and verify installed build numbers before applying or deferring updates.

---

Mitigation checklist — immediate and medium‑term steps​

The following checklist is intended for Windows and OT administrators responsible for COMOS installations. Apply in the order that matches operational constraints.

1. Inventory and identify:
   • Identify every instance of COMOS and where COMOS components run (workstations, servers, remote engineering laptops). Record exact build/version numbers.
   • Verify which COMOS installations use the ODA Drawings SDK (some installations may not use CAD import/preview features). (cisa.gov)
2. Block and isolate:
   • Minimize network exposure: ensure engineering servers and workstations are not accessible from the internet; place them behind firewalls and enforce strict ACLs.
   • Isolate engineering networks from business and internet‑facing networks with segmentation and restricted routes. (cisa.gov)
3. Control file ingestion:
   • Only accept design files (DWF/DWG) from trusted sources and vetted storage.
   • Configure enforcement: disable automatic preview or auto‑processing of uploaded drawings in COMOS if feasible.
   • Use a quarantine/scan workflow: route all inbound DWF files through an offline scanning workstation (with up‑to‑date AV + threat detection) before making them available to COMOS users.
4. Apply vendor updates:
   • Check Siemens ProductCERT for the specific Product Security Advisory (ProductCERT entries) and apply the corrective COMOS update where Siemens has provided a fixed build (e.g., update to the vendor‑recommended minimum fixed version). If a fixed version is not offered for a specific COMOS build, follow Siemens’ mitigations and consider compensating controls (network restrictions, temporary feature disablement). (cisa.gov, cert-portal.siemens.com)
5. Reduce privileges:
   • Run COMOS services and processes with the minimum necessary privileges; do not operate COMOS components as local SYSTEM unless strictly required. Limit write privileges on directories used for temporary extraction and file processing. (cisa.gov)
6. Monitor and detect:
   • Enable and review logging for COMOS import and CAD handling subsystems. Monitor for crashes, unexpected restarts, and unrecognized file‑processing activity.
   • Implement host‑based integrity checks and EDR on engineering workstations. Correlate workstation anomalies with network traffic and file‑ingestion logs. (cisa.gov)
7. Hardening and policy:
   • Enforce no‑click policies for unsolicited attachments, educate engineers on phishing and supply‑chain file risks, and require out‑of‑band verification for files that alter project or engineering settings. (cisa.gov)
8. Test and stage:
   • Before wide deployment of any COMOS update, stage and test in a mirrored environment to validate functionality and integration with upstream systems (PLCs, document management, version control). Industrial environments require careful regression testing.

---

Practical hardening patterns for Windows/engineering workstations​

• Use application whitelisting (e.g., Windows Defender Application Control) to prevent unexpected binaries from running on engineering hosts.
• Configure strict NTFS ACLs on temporary and share directories COMOS uses for file conversion. Avoid writable temporary paths that are accessible to low‑privilege accounts.
• Where possible, perform CAD previews and conversions inside isolated virtual machines or sandboxed services that are reset after processing untrusted files. This reduces the blast radius of malformed files.
• Maintain a patch ring for engineering software: testing → pilot → production. Track ProductCERT advisories and vendor fix timelines as the definitive guidance for your build. (cert-portal.siemens.com, cisa.gov)

---

Incident response considerations​

If you observe unexpected COMOS crashes or suspect exploitation:

• Preserve evidence: capture process memory, crash dumps, and the offending DWF file if available. Maintain chain of custody for any suspect file.
• Isolate impacted hosts from the engineering network pending triage. Do not power‑cycle a compromised host until forensic images and volatile data are collected.
• Engage vendor support (Siemens ProductCERT) immediately and follow their guided process for submitting logs and crash dumps. Siemens typically requests product‑specific telemetry for triage and remediation.
• Notify relevant internal stakeholders (OT managers, safety officers) and follow established escalation procedures for critical manufacturing systems.

---

Risk analysis: DoS versus code execution — realistic expectations​

The most straightforward outcome of CVE‑2024‑8894 is a crash — a denial of service that disrupts engineering workflows. Achieving reliable code execution from an out‑of‑bounds write in a modern hardened process often requires complex memory corruption exploitation chains, which are nontrivial in many deployed configurations and may depend on compiler hardening, ASLR, DEP, and other mitigations.
That said, the risk profile changes significantly when:

• The vulnerable COMOS process runs with elevated privileges; or
• The environment uses shared or automated installers that process untrusted files; or
• The attacker can supply multiple staged primitives (e.g., chaining this flaw with another vulnerability).

Given operational impacts in OT settings and the historical rise of targeted supply‑chain and file‑based attacks, treat the vulnerability conservatively as potentially enabling severe outcomes and prioritize defense‑in‑depth. (tenable.com, nvd.nist.gov)

---

Timeline and governance: what operators need to know​

• CVE assignment and public disclosure occurred in late 2024 (CVE record shows publication in December 2024), with vendor and CNA advisories following as upstream projects and vendors issued patches and mitigations. (nvd.nist.gov, tenable.com)
• CISA and other agencies republished Siemens advisories in 2024 and 2025; CISA has made explicit that after January 10, 2023 it will not continue to push rolling updates for Siemens product vulnerabilities beyond the initial advisory — instead pointing operators to Siemens ProductCERT for updates. This governance shift places the onus on operators to directly monitor vendor advisories for vendor‑specific follow‑ups. (cisa.gov)
• Where ProductCERT has published an SSA number (Siemens Security Advisory), consult that advisory for precise affected versions and remediation steps; if ProductCERT entries are not found for a referenced SSA number in third‑party feeds, treat that as an indicator to contact Siemens support for clarification. (Some advisory identifiers reported in secondary feeds may not map 1:1 to public ProductCERT pages.)

---

Strengths and limitations of the current public guidance (critical analysis)​

Strengths​

• Public coordination: the disclosure through CVE and vendor advisories, plus entries in national catalogs (CISA, NVD), ensures that operators have multiple feeds to raise alerts and cross‑validate technical details. (nvd.nist.gov, cisa.gov)
• Practical mitigations: Siemens and CISA provide clear, operational controls — isolate networks, restrict file inputs, and update to vendor fixes where available — which are actionable for most operators. (cisa.gov)

Weaknesses and risks​

• Versioning inconsistencies: differing affected‑version statements between advisory feeds create operational ambiguity; this complicates triage in large estates with heterogeneous COMOS builds. Operators must not rely on a single summary feed.
• Vendor‑centric update model: CISA’s decision to defer ongoing Siemens advisory updates to Siemens ProductCERT centralizes responsibility with the vendor. While sensible for authoritative fixes, it increases the onus on operators to maintain vendor watchlists and increases risk if organizations lack mature vendor‑monitoring processes. (cisa.gov)
• Supply‑chain dependency: the root cause in a third‑party SDK (ODA) highlights persistent supply‑chain exposure. Even if Siemens ships a fix, downstream libraries used by other tooling can harbor related flaws, so a single remediation does not eliminate risk across the ecosystem. (nvd.nist.gov, tenable.com)

---

Recommended action plan for WindowsForum readers and enterprise teams​

• Immediate (next 24–72 hours): Inventory COMOS instances, block internet exposure, restrict file import channels, and enable monitoring for unexplained COMOS crashes. Quarantine untrusted DWF files. (cisa.gov)
• Short term (1–2 weeks): Contact Siemens ProductCERT for the advisory that maps to your installed COMOS build, request fixes or guidance, and stage vendor updates for testing. Implement sandboxed file‑processing for CAD files. (cert-portal.siemens.com, cisa.gov)
• Medium term (1–3 months): Harden engineering workstations via least‑privilege, application control, and segmented deployment. Formalize a vendor advisory monitoring workflow that includes direct ProductCERT subscriptions. (cisa.gov)
• Long term (3–12 months): Review software supply‑chain policies to ensure third‑party components (like ODA SDKs) are tracked, and require SBOMs or component inventories for critical engineering platforms where possible.

---

Closing assessment​

CVE‑2024‑8894 is a reminder that complex engineering platforms like COMOS inherit risk from their third‑party components and that industrial contexts amplify the consequences of seemingly routine file‑parsing vulnerabilities. The technical root is straightforward — a bounds‑check failure in a drawing SDK — but the defensive and operational implications are far from trivial: engineering workflows, change control, and vendor governance habits all determine whether a vulnerability becomes a manageable maintenance task or a significant operational incident.
Operators should treat the issue with urgency: verify affected builds against Siemens ProductCERT advisory guidance, implement strict file‑ingestion controls, isolate engineering assets, and adopt staged, tested updates when the vendor publishes fixes. Given the mixed and at times inconsistent public messages across feeds, rely on the vendor's ProductCERT and your in‑house asset inventory for final remediation decisions rather than a single third‑party summary. (nvd.nist.gov, cisa.gov)
The cybersecurity posture of critical manufacturing systems improves when vulnerability disclosure, vendor response, and operator controls form a tight feedback loop. The COMOS / ODA issue is solvable — but only for organizations that treat file‑handling as a security boundary and make defensive hardening a routine, auditable practice.

---

Source: CISA Siemens COMOS | CISA