CVE-2014-1201
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow in the INetViewX ActiveX control in the Lorex Edge LH310 and Edge+ LH320 series with firmware 7-35-28-1B26E, Edge2 LH330 series with firmware 11.17.38-33_1D97A, and Edge3 LH340 series with firmware 11.19.85_1FE3A allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a long string in the HTTP_PORT parameter.
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 confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in the INetViewX ActiveX control in Lorex surveillance camera firmware. Triggered by sending an overly long string in the HTTP_PORT parameter, allowing remote attackers to crash the device or potentially execute arbitrary code.
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= 7-35-28-1b26e= lh310= 11.19.85_1fe3a= lh340= 11.17.38-33_1d97a= lh330= 7-35-28-1b26e= lh320CVSS 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
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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 Lorex device modelAccess the device web interface or check the device label to confirm the model number (LH310, LH320, LH330, or LH340)Affected if Device is a Lorex Edge series model (LH310, LH320, LH330, or LH340)
-
Check installed firmware versionLog into the device admin interface and navigate to System or Firmware settings to view the current firmware versionAffected if Firmware version matches 7-35-28-1b26e (LH310/LH320), 11.17.38-33_1d97a (LH330), or 11.19.85_1fe3a (LH340)
-
Verify INetViewX ActiveX control presenceAccess the device HTTP interface and look for the INetViewX ActiveX control or ActiveX controls page, typically at /cgi-bin/activex or in the device web interface settingsAffected if The INetViewX ActiveX control is present and enabled on the device
-
Confirm HTTP_PORT parameter accessibilityAttempt to access the device HTTP interface on port 80/443 and check if the web interface responds, indicating the vulnerable HTTP service is runningAffected if The device web interface is accessible over HTTP/HTTPS and accepts parameters
You are affected if you have a Lorex Edge/LH310/LH320/LH330/LH340 device running one of the listed firmware versions (7-35-28-1b26e, 11.17.38-33_1d97a, or 11.19.85_1fe3a) with the INetViewX ActiveX control enabled and accessible.
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 vendor firmware updates for affected versions (LH310/LH320: 7-35-28-1B26E, LH330: 11.17.38-33_1D97A, LH340: 11.19.85_1FE3A). If updates unavailable, disable the ActiveX control or restrict network access to these devices.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-1201 — 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-2014-1201 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