Securing Industrial Data: Mitigating AVEVA PI Data Archive Vulnerabilities

When the complex web of industrial automation and data management converges with the relentless pace of cybersecurity threats, the resulting challenge is one that no enterprise can ignore. The recent vulnerabilities disclosed in the AVEVA PI Data Archive, a critical component of industrial data infrastructure, have sent ripples across industries reliant on real-time telemetry and analytics. These flaws—specifically uncaught exceptions and heap-based buffer overflows—have been assigned common vulnerabilities and exposures (CVEs) CVE-2025-44019 and CVE-2025-36539, registering a substantial CVSS v4 score of 7.1. Industrial stakeholders must act with urgency, not only due to the technical nature of these exploits but also because of their potential impact on operational continuity, data integrity, and business resilience. This in-depth analysis explores the technical details, evaluates the risk, breaks down the available mitigations, and critically examines what AVEVA and the broader cybersecurity community have learned from incidents like these.

AVEVA PI Data Archive: Core of Critical Manufacturing​

The AVEVA PI Data Archive is not a niche product; it sits at the digital heart of industries categorized as critical infrastructure—including energy, manufacturing, water, and essential services. Designed to aggregate, store, and serve time-series data at scale, the PI Data Archive enables operators to extract actionable insights and optimize their operations. From the chemical plant floor in Texas to pharmaceutical production lines in Europe, PI systems are deeply ingrained in the world's industrial fabric.
AVEVA’s origins trace back to the United Kingdom, yet its reach is global, with thousands of organizations relying on its PI infrastructure for data reliability, traceability, and process efficiency. Any threat to the PI Data Archive is, by extension, a threat to the operational integrity of these organizations, and by proxy, to the critical services upon which entire societies rely.

Vulnerability Overview: The Anatomy of Risk​

Technical Breakdown​

The vulnerabilities underscored in the latest CISA advisory are not just theoretical weak points—they represent real-world threats with tangible operational consequences.

CVE-2025-44019 & CVE-2025-36539​

Both vulnerabilities stem from an uncaught exception condition (classified as CWE-248). When exploited, especially by authenticated users, these flaws can trigger the shutdown of PI Data Archive subsystems. The resultant effect: a denial-of-service (DoS) state. In such a configuration, no data flows, subsystems lock up, and if the timing is unfortunate, data in memory—snapshots or write cache—may be irrecoverably lost. For highly regulated industries, or those requiring strict audit trails, this risk goes beyond inconvenience; it can mean violations of legal or certification requirements.
CVE-2025-44019 affects versions:

• PI Data Archive 2018 SP3 Patch 4 and earlier
• PI Data Archive 2023, including Patch 1
• PI Server 2018 SP3 Patch 6 and earlier
• PI Server 2023, including Patch 1

Meanwhile, CVE-2025-36539 impacts:

• PI Data Archive 2023 and Patch 1
• PI Server 2023 and Patch 1

Severity and Attack Profile​

The Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) rates both vulnerabilities at 7.1 (v4), marking them as “High” severity. According to the published vectors (CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N), exploitation is feasible over a network, requires low attack complexity, and does not need user interaction. The attack leverages authenticated access, which is typical in insider threats or after lateral movement within a compromised network.
The choice of using the term “uncaught exception” rather than buffer overflow for both CVEs in official advisories warrants scrutiny. While a buffer overflow typically signals opportunities for code execution (potentially far more dangerous), CISA and AVEVA frame these primarily as DoS vectors, perhaps indicating reliable data corruption or crash conditions but not full remote code execution. Nonetheless, the operational impact remains severe; a forced restart at the wrong time can erase crucial process data, potentially crippling critical manufacturing systems.

Contextualizing the Risk​

Successful exploitation can result in the shutdown of necessary control subsystems, precipitating a loss of visibility and manipulation over industrial processes. The implications are broad:

• Denial of Service: Temporary or extended outages that halt production or critical service delivery.
• Data Loss: Transient process data may disappear, complicating regulatory compliance or post-incident root-cause analysis.
• Operational Resilience Impact: Recovery from a forced subsystem restart may be non-trivial, especially in environments that demand high availability and real-time responsiveness.
• Insider Threat Vector: Since a legitimate (authenticated) account is required, organizations must also weigh insider risk or the potential for credential theft within their broader threat models.

Industry Analysis: Scope and Motive​

Why PI Systems Are Prime Targets​

PI systems are coveted targets for threat actors because they bridge operational technology (OT) networks (the shop floor) and IT environments (the enterprise). They collect, process, and distribute high-value production data, making them a goldmine for attackers seeking to disrupt, ransom, or steal intellectual property. Additionally, the widespread deployment of PI Data Archive products means vulnerabilities here have global resonance—impacting energy grids, pharmaceutical manufacturing, food production, and critical municipal services.

No Known Exploitation—Yet​

At the time of writing, there are no confirmed reports of public or in-the-wild exploitation specifically attributed to these vulnerabilities. However, the combination of remote exploitability and low complexity favors their integration into future attack campaigns, especially if industrial threat actors can gain valid credentials through social engineering or by compromising upstream network assets.

Mitigation Strategies: What Organizations Must Do​

AVEVA’s Remediation Guidance​

AVEVA provides a multi-tiered mitigation strategy:

• Upgrade: The gold standard fix for all listed vulnerabilities is to update to PI Server 2024 or later. Customers can download updated packages via the OSISoft Customer Portal.
• Patch Management: For legacy systems (PI Data Archive 2018 SP3 Patch 4 and prior or PI Server 2018 SP3 Patch 6 and prior), organizations can upgrade instead to 2018 SP3 Patch 7 if transitioning to 2024 is not immediately practical.
• Service Monitoring: Organizations should continuously monitor the liveness of both the PI Network Manager and PI Archive Subsystem services. Automation can restart these services in the event of unexpected crashes, reducing manual intervention and downtime.
• Network Hardening: Limit access to port 5450, a common communication port for the PI Data Archive, to trusted workstations and authorized services. Refer to AVEVA’s documentation (KB01162) for precise firewall port requirements and implementation advice.

Additional best practices from OSIsoft (now part of AVEVA) and CISA include:

• Segmenting critical infrastructure networks from broader business networks via firewalls
• Prohibiting direct internet exposure of control systems
• Ensuring identity and access management controls are robust and regularly tested
• Following the “seven best practices” as outlined in KB00833

Defensive Measures: Industry Best Practice​

CISA strongly advises that, in addition to vendor recommendations, organizations:

• Place control system devices and servers behind firewalls, never directly connected to the public internet
• Use secure VPNs for remote access, with attention to VPN vulnerabilities and endpoint security
• Regularly update systems and all remote access tools to the latest, patched versions
• Implement defense-in-depth strategies, layering physical, technical, and administrative controls (Defense-in-Depth Guide, PDF)
• Maintain robust incident detection and response protocols, with staff trained to report suspicious activity internally and to CISA

These steps are not unique to PI Data Archive; they represent foundational elements of any strong industrial cybersecurity program. However, given the critical role of data historians like PI in operational resilience, the stakes for skipping these measures are uniquely high.

Critical Review: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Future Directions​

Vendor Transparency and Speed​

One notable strength in this disclosure is the pace and thoroughness of vendor and governmental coordination. AVEVA’s “Ethical Disclosure” channel ensured swift notification to CISA and the subsequent publication of a clear, actionable advisory. This cyber-ecosystem partnership is a model for timely vulnerability management across the industry—a point worth commending.
However, the disclosure process reveals persistent challenges:

• Legacy Systems: Many industrial operators run with decades-old infrastructure, complicating patch management. Some affected installations may not have straightforward migration paths to new server versions due to custom integrations, regulatory certification requirements, or operational downtime tolerance.
• Authenticated Attack Vector: The vulnerabilities require authenticated access—not trivial to achieve, but within reach for attackers who can perform credential phishing or lateral movement inside a network. This raises questions about whether existing identity management and segmentation practices are robust enough across the sector.

Analysis of Technical Documentation​

The technical details shared publicly focus on denial-of-service scenarios, but the explicit warning of data loss (“data present in snapshots/write cache may be lost”) elevates the risk considerably. For organizations in regulated sectors, mandatory data retention and integrity are not optional. The absence of remote code execution potential narrows the exploit window somewhat, but a targeted, well-timed DoS in an industrial context can have devastating, even life-threatening, consequences.
A point of caution: all risk and impact assessments should be verified against the organization’s own architectural configuration. Customizations, integrations, and legacy deployments can create unanticipated exposure. In all cases, the mitigations listed can only reduce risk, not eradicate it. Comprehensive security depends on defense-in-depth and proactive detection/response capabilities.

Proactive Security and Emerging Threats​

Cyber threats targeting industrial control systems continue to increase in both sophistication and volume. Even though no public exploits of these particular vulnerabilities are known as of this writing, the track record across ICS/SCADA in recent years suggests that threat actors are adept at identifying laggards in patch management and exploiting them. Once public advisories are released, “time to exploit” is often measured in days or weeks.
Organizations therefore must cultivate a “continuous improvement” mindset—regularly assessing, updating, and stress-testing both their software estate and their incident response plans. Detection mechanisms such as anomaly detection, network segmentation, and privileged account monitoring should be routine. Tabletop exercises simulating PI Data Archive outages can reveal both technical and organizational weak points.

Regulatory and Industry Response​

Governments and regulators worldwide are increasingly aware of the pivotal nature of industrial software vulnerabilities. Many nations now mandate incident reporting within strict timelines, particularly for operators of essential services. The swift response by AVEVA and CISA, publishing a detailed mitigation path and cross-referencing existing best-practice guidance, aligns with regulatory expectations for transparency, rapid response, and industry collaboration.

Practical Guidance for IT and Security Teams​

Upgrade and Patch Without Delay​

The most direct, highest-confidence path to mitigation is to apply vendor-provided updates. Where upgrades are not immediately feasible, the fallback of upgrading to the latest supported patch is essential. Security teams should keep detailed inventories of deployed software versions and map upgrade requirements to each instance.

Harden Access and Monitor for Abuse​

Since authenticated access is required for exploitation, limiting the issuance and use of privileged credentials is paramount:

• Implement multifactor authentication for all control system accounts
• Regularly audit user activity logs and privilege changes
• Monitor for abnormal access patterns (e.g., out-of-hours logins, failed login attempts, new device registrations)
• Remove or disable unused accounts and enforce least-privilege

Test and Automate Recovery​

Given the potential for sudden, service-affecting crashes, organizations must test the automated restart of PI services and validate that automated recovery scripts work as intended. Unplanned downtime should trigger immediate investigation, with failover systems and backup processes pre-validated to minimize data loss.

Segment, Isolate, and Protect​

OT networks must be walled off from IT infrastructure wherever possible. The use of jump boxes, single-purpose workstations, and network segmentation lowers the risk that compromise in the business environment spreads to critical control systems. When remote access is truly necessary, use updated and securely configured VPNs, and monitor all remote session logs for anomalies.

Looking Forward: The Future of PI Security​

The AVEVA PI Data Archive vulnerabilities are a stark reminder that cybersecurity is a moving target—one shaped as much by human and organizational factors as by technical ingenuity. The ongoing convergence of OT and IT, fueled by Industry 4.0 ambitions, means such vulnerabilities will only rise in importance and frequency.
Vendors must continue to invest in secure development practices, rigorous internal testing, and transparent disclosure processes. Industry stakeholders, meanwhile, must commit to lifecycle management and risk-aware procurement, choosing products and partners based not just on features, but also on evidence of security maturity.

Conclusion​

The disclosure of significant vulnerabilities in the AVEVA PI Data Archive underscores an uncomfortable truth for critical infrastructure providers: no system is immune from cyber risk. However, when suppliers, governments, and industry collaborate, and when organizations implement defense-in-depth strategies and respond with evidence-based, best practice mitigations, catastrophic risk can be controlled and reduced.
By acting upon credible advisories, hardening network environments, and fostering a culture of cybersecurity vigilance, operators can ensure that digital transformation and industrial data analytics continue to be a force for efficiency and progress, not disruption and danger. The AVEVA PI Data Archive saga is a case study not just in technical remediation, but in the ongoing journey toward resilient, secure, and trustworthy industrial operations.

---

Source: CISA AVEVA PI Data Archive | CISA