CVE-2014-2352
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 directory specifier can include designators that can be used to traverse the directory path. Exploiting this vulnerability may enable an attacker to access a limited number of hardcoded file types. Further exploitation of this vulnerability may allow an attacker to cause the web server component to enter a denial-of-service condition.
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 · moderate confidenceDirectory traversal vulnerability in a web server component where the directory specifier allows path traversal designators (such as ../ sequences). This permits authenticated attackers to access limited hardcoded file types outside the intended directory and may cause denial of service.
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<= 7.3.4= 7.0= 7.0.2= 7.1.0= 7.1.1= 7.1.1.63= 7.1.2= 7.2.2= 7.3.0= 7.3.1= 7.3.2= 7.3.3CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:P
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 Cogent Datahub installationCheck for Cogent Datahub installation by locating the program directory (typically in C:\Program Files\Cogent\Cogent Datahub or similar) or look for the service named 'Cogent Datahub' in Windows ServicesAffected if Cogent Datahub software is present on the system
-
Verify installed versionLocate the installed version by checking the application binary properties, setup log files, or the Windows Programs and Features list. Compare against affected versions: 7.0, 7.0.2, 7.1.0, 7.1.1, 7.1.1.63, 7.1.2, 7.2.2, 7.3.0, 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.3.3, or any version <= 7.3.4Affected if Installed version matches or falls within the affected version range
-
Confirm web server component is accessibleCheck if the Cogent Datahub web server is running and accessible by attempting to access the HTTP/HTTPS port configured for Datahub (default often 80 or 443, check Datahub configuration for configured port)Affected if The web server component is active and reachable over the network
-
Review authentication configurationExamine the Datahub configuration files (typically in the Datahub installation directory) to determine if authentication is enabled for the web server interfaceAffected if Web server is configured with weak or default authentication, allowing authenticated attacker access
The environment is affected if Cogent Datahub is installed with a version <= 7.3.4 or matching any of the specific affected versions, and the web server component with authentication is accessible.
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 dataImplement strict input validation and path sanitization on directory specifier parameters to reject traversal sequences; restrict file access to intended directories only.
- 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-2014-2352 — 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-2014-2352 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