Reproducing PROFINET in the Lab: Discovery, AR Establishment, and Cyclic RT Boundaries

DCP provides Layer 2 discovery and configuration functions. LLDP contributes neighboring-device and topology information. DCE/RPC over UDP port 34964 carries acyclic application-relation traffic, including structures associated with AR and IOCR configuration. Cyclic Real-Time communication uses PROFINET’s EtherType, 0x8892, and carries process data directly over Ethernet.

These components are connected. Discovery identifies a device, but discovery alone does not create a cyclic I/O relationship. AR-related traffic has meaning within the context of a controller/device relationship. A cyclic RT frame can have a recognizable layout, but its acceptance still depends on endpoint state and implementation behavior. That relationship between architecture and packet meaning guided the rest of the research.

Evidence and Interpretation

I kept three forms of evidence separate throughout the experiments.

✔ The packet captures established things such as EtherTypes, MAC addresses, UDP ports, DCE/RPC fields, frame IDs, payload lengths, timing, and whether responses appeared.

✔ Application output added information about discovery results, parsed structures, reported state, and local transmission behavior.

✔ Security conclusions were then drawn from those observations, with care around what remained unverified. For example, a captured crafted frame proves that the frame reached the capture point. It does not tell me whether the target accepted it, rejected it, ignored it, or processed it in some other way.

That sounds obvious, but it becomes easy to lose track of when a script reports a successful send and the capture looks exactly like the frame that was intended.

Phase One: DCP and LLDP Discovery

The first phase established the identity and Layer 2 visibility of the device under test. The p-net device was placed in a separate namespace and queried from the controller side using DCP Identify traffic. The response exposed the station name, vendor and device identifiers, and active IP configuration.

The device reported:

Station name: rt-labs-dev Vendor ID: 0x0493 Device ID: 0x0002 IP address: 192.168.1.20 Subnet mask: 255.255.255.0 Gateway: 192.168.1.1 

The DCP traffic used EtherType 0x8892. The station-name information appeared under the Name of Station option, using option 0x02 and suboption 0x02. The result was useful immediately. I could identify the device and retrieve its configuration without relying on an IP-based management service.

Figure 1. DCP discovery audit showing the station name, vendor and device identifiers, and active IP configuration reported by the laboratory device.

Testing a station-name update

After discovery, I tried changing the station name to: tesla-pnet-node. The device continued reporting: rt-labs-dev. The update did not take effect. The behavior was consistent with runtime write protection, although the unchanged station name alone did not reveal the exact reason for the failure. This was a useful early reminder that a request and its intended effect are separate things. The request could be generated and transmitted successfully while the configuration remained unchanged.

LLDP topology information

LLDP provided another view of the same Layer 2 environment.

The captured information included:

Chassis ID: P-Net Sample Application 12345 Abcdefghijk 007 3 V 0 2 0 Port ID: port-001.rt-labs-dev System Name: p-net IO-Device TTL: 20 seconds 

The LLDP frames used EtherType 0x88CC and the standard LLDP multicast destination: 01:80:c2:00:00:0e. The TTL represented the validity lifetime of the advertised information. I treated it as an information lifetime rather than assuming it described the transmission interval.

Figure 2. LLDP topology information observed from the laboratory device, including chassis identity, port identity, system name, and advertisement lifetime.

Security relevance

The discovery phase exposed several useful protocol surfaces:

• Station-name identity
• Vendor and device identifiers
• IP configuration
• Layer 2 device visibility
• Neighbor and port information
• Configuration-related operations

An actor with suitable Layer 2 access could use these mechanisms to learn about devices and their network context. The experiment did not establish a vulnerability by itself, but it showed how much information is available before any higher-level communication relationship is created.

Phase Two: DCE/RPC and Application-Relation Traffic

DCP discovery identifies a device. It does not establish the communication relationship required for cyclic I/O.

The second phase moved into DCE/RPC traffic over UDP port 34964. The custom harness constructed a connect request containing structures associated with:

• ARBlockReq
• IOCRBlockReq
• AlarmCRBlockReq

The request used this ARUUID:

08019a8a-9f6f-4bb1-ad46-0da8698a5bc5 

The observed DCE/RPC interface UUID was:

4a823108-a078-11d0-b21a-00a0241a673b 

The packet capture showed a controller-to-device request followed by a device-to-controller response.

The capture independently established:

• DCE/RPC version 4
• Request packet type 0x00
• Response packet type 0x02
• Interface UUID
• Opnum 122
• Response association with the original request

The response contained:

dcerpc.request_in: 1 

That field associated the response with the first request in the capture.

Figure 3. DCE/RPC request and response observed during the application-relation experiment over UDP port 34964.

I also captured the broader exchange to examine the surrounding traffic and the sequence reported by the implementation.

Figure 4. Expanded view of the DCE/RPC application-relation exchange and associated traffic observed during the laboratory handshake.

AR-related structures and state progression

The application output provided additional context for the AR-related blocks and reported a state sequence resembling:

IDLE → CONNECT → PARAM → CONFIG → APPL-READY → RUN 

I treated this as implementation and test behavior. It helped explain what the application believed was happening during the exchange, but I did not present it as a universal wire-level state machine for every PROFINET implementation. TShark exposed the DCE/RPC fields, but it did not independently decode every individual PROFINET block field in the request and response. The block-level interpretation therefore came from the combined evidence of the harness, implementation output, and packet structure. That combination was enough to make the exchange useful for research, while still leaving some endpoint-side questions open.

Security relevance

The experiment exposed several questions relevant to application-relation security:

• How are ARUUID values validated?
• How does an implementation bind an AR to a device and controller?
• How are duplicate or conflicting relationships handled?
• What prevents replay or injection of relationship-management traffic?
• How does the implementation behave when relationship resources are exhausted?
• Which parts of the exchange receive authentication or integrity protection?

The ARUUID identified a communication relationship. It did not function as a credential. The observed exchange also did not demonstrate mutual cryptographic authentication at the DCE/RPC layer. Questions around injection, hijacking, replay, and resource exhaustion would require additional endpoint-side experiments and implementation-specific evidence.

Phase Three: Cyclic Real-Time Framing

The third phase examined cyclic Real-Time traffic over PROFINET EtherType 0x8892.

At this point, the available p-net configuration became a limiting factor. It did not produce a usable cyclic RT stream for the experiment I wanted to perform. Rather than leave the wire format unexplored, I built a separate traffic generator to examine frame structure, field placement, timing, and controlled payload changes.

The generator was deliberately limited in scope. It could construct and transmit candidate RT frames, but it did not establish an AR, negotiate IOCRs, maintain a process image, or demonstrate receiver-side acceptance.

Observed frame layout

The generated frames were 60 bytes long and followed this layout:

Ethernet destination 6 bytes Ethernet source 6 bytes EtherType 2 bytes Frame ID 2 bytes IO/application data 40 bytes Cycle Counter 2 bytes DataStatus 1 byte TransferStatus 1 byte 

The capture contained:

Frame count: 515 Frame length: 60 bytes EtherType: 0x8892 Frame ID: 0x8000 Application data: 40 bytes Cycle Counter: 0x0000 DataStatus: 0x35 TransferStatus: 0x00 

The relative PROFINET RT payload layout was:

Offset 0–1: Frame ID Offset 2–41: IO/application data Offset 42–43: Cycle Counter Offset 44: DataStatus Offset 45: TransferStatus 

One representative frame contained:

Offset 14: 80 00 Offset 16: 01 59 Offset 18: 01 02 03 04 Offset 56: 00 00 Offset 58: 35 Offset 59: 00 

Correcting the cycle-counter interpretation

One of the more useful moments in this phase came from checking the changing values against the actual field offsets. The sequential values initially looked like possible cycle-counter values. When I checked their position in the frame, they were inside the application-data region. The actual cycle-counter field remained: 00 00. The changing values belonged to application data.

This was a good example of why protocol analysis needs more than a changing byte sequence. Field position, length, surrounding structure, and protocol semantics all have to agree before a value can be assigned a meaning.

Controlled payload insertion

The generator inserted: FF 00 AA 55 into the application-data region. The special frames began at capture frame 346. The sequence appeared at absolute offsets 18 through 21, placing it inside application data rather than inside the cycle counter or status fields. The cycle counter remained unchanged. DataStatus and TransferStatus also remained unchanged.

Figure 5. Cyclic PROFINET RT analysis showing the observed frame structure, application-data changes, cycle-counter position, and status fields.

No PROFINET diagnostics or alarms appeared in the capture. All 515 packets used the same EtherType and Frame ID.

Timing observations

The experiment did not produce the expected 144-millisecond silence. The maximum observed packet gap was approximately: 33.972 ms. Around the controlled payload event, a normal interval of approximately 32 milliseconds was divided into shorter intervals surrounding the inserted frame. The capture therefore showed a timing change around the event, rather than a complete communication silence.

I used a watchdog model of: 32 ms × 3 = 96 ms as a laboratory assumption for discussing possible timeout behavior. That value was not treated as a universal PROFINET threshold, and the experiment did not demonstrate a watchdog transition.

Security relevance

The experiment demonstrated that a host with Layer 2 access can construct candidate PROFINET RT frames and place controlled values inside the application-data region. It did not establish that a real controller or device accepted those frames, modified its process image, triggered a diagnostic, or changed state.

The cycle counter and status fields provide continuity and communication-state information, but they do not provide cryptographic authentication. A capable Layer 2 actor can construct plausible field values. Whether an endpoint accepts those values depends on the implementation and the communication state surrounding the frame. PROFIsafe was outside the scope of this experiment.

Phase Four: Layer 2 Traffic, Netload, and Malformed Inputs

The fourth phase used an independent Scapy-based harness to generate three categories of Layer 2 traffic:

1. A netload-oriented burst
2. DCP-like station-name packets
3. Malformed RT-like frames

The goal was to observe the traffic-generation path and inspect the resulting captures. I also wanted to see whether the target produced any visible response, diagnostic, or recovery behavior.

Netload-oriented burst

The harness targeted approximately 15,000 packets per second. The actual measured transmission rate was approximately: 4,014.46 packets per second. The experiment transmitted 500 frames and recorded no kernel or interface drops. The resulting burst lasted approximately: 108.536 ms

The capture showed 499 packet intervals:

Minimum: 159.979 µs Maximum: 1.708031 ms Mean: 217.507 µs Median: 205.040 µs 

The intended rate was therefore not reproduced. The result told me more about the behavior of the traffic-generation path than about how a PROFINET endpoint would handle a genuine Class III load. That limitation was useful to record because the harness output alone could have made the experiment look more successful than the measurements supported.

DCP-like station-name packets

The harness transmitted three crafted station-name packets from a rogue source MAC address:

aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff 

The packets claimed the station name:

rt-labs-dev 

The payload included:

03 01 00 01 00 01 00 08 02 02 00 0b 72 74 2d 6c 61 62 73 2d 64 65 76 

I refer to these as DCP-like station-name packets because they did not include the conventional DCP frame identifier FE FD. Calling them valid DCP Identify Responses would have gone beyond what the packet structure supported. The capture showed all three transmitted frames, but no subsequent response appeared.

Malformed RT-like frames

The harness also transmitted five frames using:

Frame ID: 0x00FF Payload: 10 bytes 

The frames appeared in the capture. No target-side diagnostic, rejection, recovery action, or state change was observed.

The complete capture contained:

500 netload-oriented frames 3 DCP-like station-name frames 5 malformed RT-like frames 

All captured traffic used EtherType 0x8892. No IP, ARP, UDP, TCP, ICMP, or LLDP traffic appeared in the capture.

Figure 6. Phase 4 traffic audit showing the captured Layer 2 burst, DCP-like station-name packets, and malformed RT-like frames.

Security relevance

The phase demonstrated that crafted Layer 2 traffic could be generated and captured in the isolated laboratory. The captures did not reveal how the target parsed, rejected, ignored, or processed each frame. The harness labels described the intended test stages, while the PCAP established what was transmitted and visible at the capture point. That left the endpoint-side outcome unresolved.

Phase Five: Historical Security Classes and Newer Secure Mechanisms

The final phase connected the laboratory observations to PROFINET’s published security architecture.

The research question was:

How does the security architecture defined by PROFINET specifications address the discovery, application-relation, cyclic RT, and Layer 2 attack surfaces observed experimentally, and how has that architecture evolved from the historical Security Class 1/2/3 model toward newer secure application mechanisms?

The comparison covered:

• DCP and LLDP discovery
• DCE/RPC and application relations
• Cyclic RT traffic
• Layer 2 injection and malformed traffic
• Netload robustness
• Historical Security Classes 1, 2, and 3
• Newer secure application mechanisms
• Secure provisioning and device identity

Historical Security Classes

The historical model described three broad security classes:

• Security Class 1: robustness
• Security Class 2: integrity and authenticity
• Security Class 3: confidentiality

This model provided a useful way to discuss increasing security requirements. It should, however, be kept separate from newer PROFINET security terminology.

Newer security architecture

Published PROFINET specification material describes newer mechanisms and architectural changes, including:

• Secure-capable successors for protocols without secure variants
• SXP over Layer 2
• SXP over Layer 3
• Secure provisioning
• IDevID and certificate-based device identity
• Secure SXP over TCP
• Security-related GSDML application classes
• SecureAccess
• SecureRealtime
• Updated robustness terminology

The newer architecture addresses particular communication and application requirements through more specific mechanisms.

The experimental observations can be mapped to those directions:

This phase remained specification-driven. The newer mechanisms were not implemented or validated in the laboratory.

What the Laboratory Established

The research established a reproducible environment for examining several PROFINET protocol surfaces.

The experiments demonstrated:

• DCP discovery and device identity enumeration
• Station-name and IP configuration visibility
• LLDP chassis, port, and system information
• DCE/RPC request and response behavior over UDP/34964
• AR-related application output and reported state progression
• Cyclic RT frame structure
• Actual cycle-counter and DataStatus positions
• Controlled application-data changes in generated RT frames
• Transmission of crafted Layer 2 traffic
• Measured behavior of the traffic-generation path
• A specification-driven comparison with historical and newer security mechanisms

What Remained Outside the Laboratory’s Reach

Several questions required a more complete controller/device environment or a different implementation.

The experiments did not establish:

• Universal PROFINET behavior across vendors
• Complete controller/device interoperability
• Endpoint acceptance of every crafted frame
• Process-image modification
• Target-side diagnostics or recovery
• Successful Class III netload reproduction
• Cryptographic protection of every observed legacy exchange
• PROFIsafe behavior
• Production-equivalent resilience
• The behavior of a complete commercial PROFINET controller/device pair

These limits define the boundary of the results. They do not erase the discovery, packet analysis, implementation work, or corrections made during the research.

Conclusion

This study established a reproducible laboratory for examining PROFINET discovery, application-relation traffic, cyclic RT framing, and selected Layer 2 inputs.

The available open-source implementation supported meaningful wire-level analysis, but it did not expose enough controller/device behavior to verify every intended endpoint-side effect. The separate cyclic RT generator made frame construction, field placement, and timing measurable, but it could not substitute for a functioning PROFINET IO-Device relationship.

The most valuable part of the process was learning to recognize that boundary while the experiments were still in progress. A generated frame can look correct in a capture. A script can report a successful transmission. An implementation can print a state transition. Those observations become much more useful when I know exactly which part of the protocol they represent and which questions they leave unanswered.

The research therefore ended with a clearer understanding of both PROFINET and the laboratory itself. I could reproduce discovery behavior, inspect application-relation traffic, analyze cyclic RT fields, generate controlled Layer 2 inputs, and compare those surfaces with the protocol’s security architecture. I could also identify where further claims would require a more complete endpoint implementation. That is, to me, a meaningful result for protocol security research.

The protocol remains the subject. The implementation is the instrument. Sometimes the instrument exposes a complete interaction. Sometimes it gives only a partial view. The researcher’s job is to understand what the instrument can establish, preserve the evidence, and avoid turning an intended experiment into a claim that the laboratory never demonstrated.

Key Takeaways

• DCP and LLDP expose useful device identity and topology information at Layer 2.
• DCP discovery does not establish the application relationship required for cyclic I/O.
• DCE/RPC traffic over UDP/34964 provides an observable surface for examining AR-related communication.
• An ARUUID identifies a communication relationship but is not a credential.
• Cyclic RT frame construction does not prove endpoint acceptance or process-image modification.
• Changing values inside a frame does not make those values the cycle counter. Field offsets and protocol semantics must agree.
• The observed RT cycle counter remained 0x0000, while changing values were located inside application data.
• The netload experiment measured the limits of the traffic-generation path rather than reproducing a complete Class III resilience test.
• DCP-like and malformed frames were captured, but target-side processing was not established.
• Historical Security Classes 1, 2, and 3 should be separated from newer PROFINET security terminology.
• Packet captures, application output, and specification material answer different parts of the research question.
• A completed protocol study does not need to produce an exploit in every phase.
• Understanding what the laboratory can and cannot prove is part of the research result.

Reproduce the Research

The complete laboratory setup, research notes, custom scripts, packet captures, and supporting material are available in the repository below. If you want to go beyond the observations in this article, the repository is the place to start reproducing the experiments yourself.

Repository: https://github.com/404saint/industrial-protocol-labs/tree/main/profinet-research