CVE-2014-0079
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 7.1.8, 6.20.0, and earlier, when using certain build conditions, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via vectors related to "a NULL pointer of the password."
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 · moderate confidenceThe ValidateUserLogon function in Zarafa's ECServer.cpp lacks proper NULL pointer validation when handling password parameters. Under certain build conditions, a remote attacker can trigger a NULL pointer dereference by sending specially crafted authentication requests with a NULL password pointer, causing the service to crash and resulting in denial of service.
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<= 6.20= 5.00= 5.01= 5.02= 5.10= 5.11= 5.20= 5.22= 6.00= 6.01= 6.02= 6.03CVSS 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 installation and locate binaryCheck if Zarafa server is installed by searching for ECServer binary: 'which ECServer' or 'find / -name ECServer 2>/dev/null'. Also check for Zarafa packages: 'dpkg -l | grep -i zarafa' or 'rpm -qa | grep -i zarafa'.Affected if No Zarafa installation found means not affected.
-
Identify installed Zarafa versionRun version check command such as 'rpm -qi zarafa' or 'dpkg -s zarafa-server', or if ECServer binary exists, check with '/path/to/ECServer --version' if supported. Compare against affected versions: 5.00, 5.01, 5.02, 5.10, 5.11, 5.20, 5.22, 6.00, 6.01, 6.02, 6.03, and any version <= 6.20.Affected if Installed version matches any of the affected versions listed in the CVE.
-
Verify ECServer service is runningCheck if the ECServer process is active: 'ps aux | grep ECServer' or 'systemctl status zarafa-server' or 'service zarafa-server status'.Affected if Service is not running means the DoS cannot be triggered against this system currently.
-
Check if authentication endpoint is exposedDetermine if the Zarafa server port is externally accessible. Common ports are 236 (HTTP) or 237 (HTTPS). Use 'netstat -tlnp | grep -E "(236|237)"' or check firewall rules with 'iptables -L' or 'firewall-cmd --list-all' to see if the port is bound to a non-localhost interface.Affected if Port is exposed to network and version is affected, then remote exploitation is possible.
A system is affected if it runs a Zarafa server version matching 5.00-5.22, 6.00-6.03, or any version <= 6.20, with the ECServer service running and accessible on the network.
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 a patched version of Zarafa that addresses this NULL pointer dereference in the ValidateUserLogon function, or implement proper NULL pointer validation in the authentication code path to prevent crashes from malformed login attempts.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-0079 — 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-2014-0079 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