dbcve.org
RplyApplication · Rply Project

CVE-2014-1938

MEDIUM · 5.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2019-11-21
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 0.7.4 or later.
See remediation →
57/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Zero-click

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 · unedited
python-rply before 0.7.4 insecurely creates temporary files.

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 confidence

python-rply versions before 0.7.4 create temporary files insecurely, likely due to predictable filenames or race conditions in the temp file creation process. This could allow local attackers to perform symlink attacks or overwrite/read sensitive files via predictably named temporary files.

MitigationUpgrade python-rply to version 0.7.4 or later to obtain the secure temporary file handling implementation.

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
RplyApplication
Affected:< 0.7.4

CVSS 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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Check if rply is installed
    Run 'pip show rply' or 'pip list | grep -i rply' to see if the rply package is present in the Python environment
    Affected if rply is not installed or the package is not found in the environment
  2. Retrieve the installed version
    Run 'pip show rply' and note the Version field, or use 'python -c "import rply; print(rply.__version__)" if available
    Affected if The displayed version is lower than 0.7.4 (for example, 0.7.0, 0.7.1, 0.7.2, 0.7.3, or any version string that sorts below 0.7.4)
  3. Verify the temp file creation behavior
    Inspect any code that imports and uses the rply lexer or parser module, as the vulnerability lies in how rply creates temporary files during parsing operations
    Affected if The library is actively used to parse RLexer or RParser operations and the installed version is below 0.7.4

The environment is affected if the rply Python package is installed with any version prior to 0.7.4 and the code performs parsing operations that trigger temporary file creation.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Upgrade available Upgrade to 0.7.4 or later
Fixed in 0.7.4
Interim mitigation

Upgrade python-rply to version 0.7.4 or later to obtain the secure temporary file handling implementation.

Fix this in Rply Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation1.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
6.0 hours of engineering $1,040
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,664.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-1938 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2014-1938 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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