CVE-2014-2071
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 · uneditedAruba Networks ClearPass Policy Manager 6.1.x, 6.2.x before 6.2.5.61640 and 6.3.x before 6.3.0.61712, when configured to use tunneled and non-tunneled EAP methods in a single policy construct, allows remote authenticated users to gain privileges by advertising independent inner and outer identities within a tunneled EAP method.
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 confidenceAruba ClearPass Policy Manager has an authentication bypass vulnerability when configured to use both tunneled and non-tunneled EAP methods within a single policy. Authenticated remote users can manipulate independent inner and outer identities within tunneled EAP methods to escalate privileges beyond their authorized access level.
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>= 6.1, <= 6.1.4>= 6.2, < 6.2.5.61640>= 6.3, < 6.3.0.61712CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check ClearPass Policy Manager versionNavigate to Administration > About > Copyright in the ClearPass web UI, or run 'show version' via CLIAffected if Installed version is 6.1.0 through 6.1.4, 6.2.0 through 6.2.5.61639, or 6.3.0 through 6.3.0.61711
-
Identify authentication policies with mixed EAP typesIn ClearPass Policy Manager, go to Configuration > Authentication > Policies and review each policy for EAP methods. Look for policies that include both tunneled methods (such as PEAP, TTLS, or FAST) and non-tunneled methods (such as EAP-MSCHAPv2, EAP-GTC, or PAP) in the same authentication method list.Affected if A policy contains both tunneled and non-tunneled EAP methods within a single authentication policy construct
-
Verify EAP configuration in authentication servicesGo to Configuration > Authentication > Services and inspect each service's authentication methods. Check whether any service references multiple EAP methods where both tunneled and non-tunneled types are present.Affected if Any authentication service is configured to use both tunneled and non-tunneled EAP methods simultaneously
A user is affected if running a vulnerable ClearPass version AND has authentication policies that combine tunneled and non-tunneled EAP methods within the same policy construct.
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 data6.2.5.616406.3.0.61712
Upgrade to ClearPass Policy Manager 6.2.5.61640 or later for 6.2.x, or 6.3.0.61712 or later for 6.3.x. Alternatively, reconfigure authentication policies to separate tunneled and non-tunneled EAP methods into distinct policy constructs.
- 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-2014-2071 — 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-2014-2071 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