CVE-2014-1423
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 · uneditedsignond before 8.57+15.04.20141127.1-0ubuntu1, as used in Ubuntu Touch, did not properly restrict applications from querying oath tokens due to incorrect checks and the missing installation of the signon-apparmor-extension. An attacker could use this create a malicious click app that collects oauth tokens for other applications, exposing sensitive information.
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 signond (sign-on daemon) in Ubuntu Touch versions before 8.57+15.04.20141127.1-0ubuntu1 contained improper access controls that allowed applications to query OATH tokens belonging to other applications. This was due to incorrect permission checks in the daemon and the absence of the signon-apparmor-extension package, which should enforce AppArmor confinement between applications.
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< 8.57\+15.04.20141127.1-0ubuntu1all 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/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.
-
Check signond versionRun 'dpkg -l signond' or 'apt policy signond' to retrieve the installed package versionAffected if The installed version is lower than 8.57+15.04.20141127.1-0ubuntu1
-
Check signon-apparmor-extension installationRun 'dpkg -l signon-apparmor-extension' to verify whether the package is installedAffected if The package is not installed (not present in dpkg output)
-
Verify AppArmor extension statusQuery the package manager for signon-apparmor-extension details using 'apt-cache policy signon-apparmor-extension'Affected if The package shows as 'not installed' or 'not installed yet'
You are affected if signond version is below 8.57+15.04.20141127.1-0ubuntu1 OR if the signon-apparmor-extension package is not installed, as both conditions enable the improper token access vulnerability.
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 data8.57
Upgrade signond to version 8.57+15.04.20141127.1-0ubuntu1 or later and ensure the signon-apparmor-extension is installed to enforce proper AppArmor isolation between applications.
- 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-2014-1423 — 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-2014-1423 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