CVE-2014-0358
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 · uneditedMultiple directory traversal vulnerabilities in Xangati XSR before 11 and XNR before 7 allow remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) in (1) the file parameter in a getUpgradeStatus action to servlet/MGConfigData, (2) the download parameter in a download action to servlet/MGConfigData, (3) the download parameter in a port_svc action to servlet/MGConfigData, (4) the file parameter in a getfile action to servlet/Installer, or (5) the binfile parameter to servlet/MGConfigData.
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 confidenceMultiple directory traversal vulnerabilities exist in Xangati XSR before version 11 and XNR before version 7, allowing remote attackers to read arbitrary files by using '..' sequences in parameters across five different servlet endpoints. The vulnerabilities affect getUpgradeStatus and download actions in servlet/MGConfigData, port_svc action, getfile action in servlet/Installer, and the binfile parameter. This allows unauthenticated remote attackers to access sensitive system files.
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 dataall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- Complete
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Identify if Xangati XSR or XNR is installedSearch for Xangati installation directories or check for running processes named 'xangati', 'xsr', or 'xnr' using commands like 'ps -ef | grep -i xangati' or 'find / -name "*xangati*" -type d 2>/dev/null'Affected if Xangati XSR or XNR software is found on the system
-
Determine the installed version of Xangati XSRLook for version information in installation files, configuration files, or the application interface. Check common locations such as /opt/xangati/, /usr/local/xangati/, or the application's help/about section. Look for a version file or check the XSR web interface if accessible.Affected if XSR version is found to be lower than version 11 (e.g., 10.x, 9.x, etc.)
-
Determine the installed version of Xangati XNRLook for version information in installation files, configuration files, or the application interface. Check installation directories for version manifests or the application's help/about section.Affected if XNR version is found to be lower than version 7 (e.g., 6.x, 5.x, etc.)
-
Verify the vulnerable servlet endpoints are exposedCheck if the web interfaces for servlet/MGConfigData, servlet/Installer, or port_svc are accessible. Look for these paths in web server configuration files (e.g., Apache Tomcat server.xml, web.xml) or test by accessing http://<host>/servlet/MGConfigData or similar URL patterns.Affected if The vulnerable servlets (MGConfigData, Installer, port_svc) are accessible via HTTP without authentication
-
Inspect HTTP parameters for directory traversal protectionReview web application firewall logs, intrusion detection logs, or proxy logs for attempts containing '..' sequences in parameters like 'download', 'getfile', 'getUpgradeStatus', 'port_svc', or 'binfile'. Also check if the application validates or sanitizes these parameters.Affected if Directory traversal patterns ('..') in the mentioned parameters are not being blocked or sanitized, or if historical attack attempts are found in logs
A system is affected if Xangati XSR version is below 11 or XNR version is below 7, and the vulnerable servlet endpoints (MGConfigData, Installer, port_svc) handling file download operations are exposed to network access.
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 Xangati XSR to version 11 or later and XNR to version 7 or later to obtain patched code. If immediate patching is not feasible, consider network segmentation to limit exposure of the vulnerable servlet interfaces and implement web application firewall rules to detect and block directory traversal patterns in HTTP parameters.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-0358 — 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-2014-0358 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