CVE-2014-0037
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedThe ValidateUserLogon function in provider/libserver/ECSession.cpp in Zarafa 5.00 before 7.1.8 beta2 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via vectors related to "a NULL pointer of the username."
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe ValidateUserLogon function in Zarafa's ECSession.cpp does not properly validate the username parameter before use, leading to a NULL pointer dereference when an attacker provides an empty or NULL username value. This causes the server process to crash, resulting in denial of service for all users.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 5.00= 5.01= 5.02= 5.10= 5.11= 5.20= 5.22= 6.00= 6.01= 6.02= 6.03= 6.10CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm Zarafa server is installedCheck for Zarafa server binaries or packages: look for 'zarafa' in installed packages (dpkg -l | grep zarafa, rpm -qa | grep zarafa) or check for presence of Zarafa directories such as /usr/bin/zarafa, /usr/sbin/zarafa, or /var/lib/zarafaAffected if Zarafa server software is present on the system
-
Identify installed Zarafa versionRun 'zarafa-server --version' or check the package version: 'dpkg -l zarafa-server' or 'rpm -q zarafa-server'Affected if The version number returned matches any of these: 5.00, 5.01, 5.02, 5.10, 5.11, 5.20, 5.22, 6.00, 6.01, 6.02, 6.03, 6.10
-
Verify the service is network-accessibleCheck if the Zarafa server is listening on its default ports (236 for HTTP, 237 for HTTPS) using 'netstat -tlnp | grep -E "236|237"' or 'ss -tlnp | grep -E "236|237"'Affected if The Zarafa service ports are open and accepting connections, exposing the vulnerable function to network requests
-
Confirm authentication endpoint is reachableTest connectivity to the Zarafa server's login endpoint by attempting a connection to port 236 or 237, or check server configuration files (server.cfg) for 'server_bind' and 'enable_https' settingsAffected if The authentication interface is exposed and reachable, allowing unauthenticated or malformed login attempts to reach the ValidateUserLogon function
You are affected if Zarafa server is installed with any version from 5.00 through 6.10 and the authentication service is network-accessible, since the vulnerable ValidateUserLogon function will process empty username requests and crash.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade to Zarafa version 7.1.8 beta2 or later, which includes proper NULL pointer validation in the ValidateUserLogon function. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, consider implementing input validation at a proxy or gateway level to reject malformed authentication requests.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-0037 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2014-0037 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data