CVE-2014-0642
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 · uneditedEMC Documentum Content Server before 6.7 SP1 P26, 6.7 SP2 before P13, 7.0 before P13, and 7.1 before P02 allows remote authenticated users to bypass intended access restrictions and read metadata from certain folders via unspecified vectors.
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 confidenceEMC Documentum Content Server contains an access control bypass vulnerability where authenticated users can read metadata from folders outside their intended permissions. The flaw allows privilege escalation through unauthorized metadata access, likely due to improper validation of folder-level access controls in the affected versions.
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<= 6.7= 6.0= 6.5= 6.6= 6.7= 7.0= 7.1CVSS 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
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/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 Documentum Content Server versionQuery the Content Server for its installed version using the dm_version utility or check the installation manifest. Common locations include the $DM_HOME/bin directory or registry entries.Affected if The installed version is 6.0, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 7.0, or 7.1, or any version 6.7 or lower.
-
Verify folder-level ACL enforcementReview the folder permission configurations in the Content Server repository. Examine the ACLs (Access Control Lists) assigned to folders and verify that permission inheritance is properly configured.Affected if Folders have ACLs that allow metadata access to authenticated users beyond their assigned permissions, or permission inheritance is misconfigured.
-
Check for unauthorized metadata access attemptsSearch the Content Server audit logs for metadata access events on folders outside the requesting user's normal permission scope. Look for unusual read access patterns on restricted folders.Affected if Audit logs show metadata read operations on folders the user should not have permission to access.
-
Test cross-folder metadata visibilityUsing a test authenticated user account with limited folder permissions, attempt to query or read metadata from folders outside their assigned permission set.Affected if The test user can successfully retrieve metadata from folders they were not granted explicit access to.
A user is affected if they are running Documentum Content Server version 6.0, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 7.0, or 7.1 (or any version <= 6.7) and folder-level access controls allow authenticated users to access metadata outside their intended permissions.
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 dataApply the vendor patches for the respective versions (6.7 SP1 P26, 6.7 SP2 P13, 7.0 P13, or 7.1 P02) and conduct an access control audit to verify that folder permissions are properly enforced post-patch.
- 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-2014-0642 — 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-2014-0642 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