CVE-2014-1966
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 SNMP implementation in Siemens RuggedCom ROS before 3.11, ROS 3.11 for RS950G, ROS 3.12 before 3.12.4, and ROS 4.0 for RSG2488 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device outage) via crafted packets.
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 confidenceDenial of service vulnerability in Siemens RuggedCom ROS SNMP implementation allows remote attackers to crash devices via crafted SNMP packets. Affected versions include ROS before 3.11, 3.11 for RS950G, before 3.12.4, and ROS 4.0 for RSG2488. The attack requires no authentication and can cause complete device outage.
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< 3.11.0>= 3.12, < 3.12.4> 3.11.0, < 3.11.5> 4.0, < 4.1.0CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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 the device and ROS versionAccess the RuggedCom web interface or CLI and locate the system information or firmware version. In CLI, commands like 'show version' or 'system info' typically display the ROS version.Affected if The displayed ROS version falls within < 3.11.0, >= 3.12 and < 3.12.4, > 3.11.0 and < 3.11.5, or > 4.0 and < 4.1.0.
-
Confirm SNMP service is enabledIn the web interface, navigate to SNMP settings (typically under Configuration > Network > SNMP) or use CLI command 'show snmp' to check if SNMP is configured and enabled.Affected if SNMP is enabled and the device is accessible on network segments where SNMP traffic can be received.
-
Verify ROS version matches vulnerable rangesCompare the identified ROS version number against the affected ranges: any version before 3.11.0, versions 3.12.x before 3.12.4, versions 3.11.1 through 3.11.4, or versions 4.0.1 through 4.0.x before 4.1.0.Affected if The installed version exactly matches one of these vulnerable ranges.
A device is affected if it is running Siemens RuggedCom ROS with a version matching one of the vulnerable ranges AND has SNMP enabled, as the vulnerability lies in the SNMP packet handling that can be exploited remotely without authentication.
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 data3.11.03.11.53.12.4
Upgrade RuggedCom ROS to version 3.11, 3.12.4, or 4.0 and later. If immediate patching is not feasible, restrict SNMP access through firewalls or disable SNMP if not required.
- 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-2014-1966 — 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-2014-1966 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