CVE-2014-1861
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 client in Jetro COCKPIT Secure Browsing (JCSB) 4.3.1 and 4.3.3 does not validate the FileName element in an RDP_FILE_TRANSFER document, which allows remote JCSB servers to execute arbitrary programs by providing a .EXE extension.
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 Jetro COCKPIT Secure Browsing (JCSB) client versions 4.3.1 and 4.3.3 fail to validate the FileName element in RDP_FILE_TRANSFER documents. A malicious or compromised JCSB server can send specially crafted file transfer requests containing executable (.EXE) filenames, causing the client to download and execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the client user.
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= 4.3.1= 4.3.3CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:M/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.
-
Verify Jetro Cockpit Secure Browsing installationCheck for JCSB installation by searching for Jetro Cockpit or JCSB in program files directories (e.g., C:\Program Files\Jetro or C:\Program Files (x86)\Jetro) and verify the application executable existsAffected if JCSB is installed on the system
-
Identify installed JCSB versionRight-click the JCSB executable (typically named JetroCockpit.exe or similar), select Properties, and check the File Version or Product Version field in the Details tabAffected if The installed version is exactly 4.3.1 or exactly 4.3.3
-
Confirm RDP file transfer feature usageReview JCSB configuration files (look for .xml or .ini files in the JCSB installation directory or user data folder) for RDP_FILE_TRANSFER settings or session configurations that enable file transferAffected if File transfer functionality is enabled in the JCSB configuration
-
Inspect download directories for unexpected executablesSearch common JCSB download locations (typically the user Downloads folder or a JCSB-specific downloads folder within the installation directory) for recently created .exe files, especially from unknown sourcesAffected if Unexpected .exe files are present in download directories with timestamps matching recent JCSB session dates
A user is affected if JCSB versions 4.3.1 or 4.3.3 are installed and the RDP file transfer feature is enabled or was used, with any unexpected executable files found in download locations.
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 JCSB if available; otherwise restrict network access to only trusted JCSB servers and monitor for unexpected file transfers or executable creation.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-1861 — 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-2014-1861 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