CVE-2014-2354
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 · uneditedCogent DataHub before 7.3.5 does not use a salt during password hashing, which makes it easier for context-dependent attackers to obtain cleartext passwords via a brute-force attack.
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 confidenceCogent DataHub before version 7.3.5 stores passwords without using a cryptographic salt during the hashing process. Without salt, identical passwords produce identical hashes, enabling rainbow table attacks and significantly reducing the effort required for brute-force password cracking.
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
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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 installed Cogent DataHub versionLocate the Cogent DataHub installation and retrieve its version number, typically found in the program properties, about dialog, or installation directory metadataAffected if The installed version is 7.3.4 or any of the listed 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 lower than 7.3.5
-
Locate password configuration storageFind the configuration file or database where Cogent DataHub stores user password hashes, typically in the installation data directory or configuration folderAffected if Password hash storage files exist and are accessible to the detection process
-
Inspect password hashes for salt usageExamine the stored password hash format - check if the hash appears as a single fixed-length string without an embedded random value prefix or delimiter that would indicate salt inclusionAffected if Password hashes appear as single unsalted strings (such as MD5 or SHA1 format without appended salt values), indicating identical passwords would produce identical hashes
-
Compare hash uniqueness for test accountsIf multiple test accounts can be created with the same password, retrieve their stored hashes and compare them directlyAffected if Multiple accounts with identical passwords produce identical hash values in storage, confirming the absence of per-password salt
A user is affected if their Cogent DataHub installation version is 7.3.4 or lower, as these versions store password hashes without cryptographic salt, making them vulnerable to rainbow table attacks.
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 Cogent DataHub to version 7.3.5 or later which implements proper password salting. If upgrade is not immediately possible, monitor for unauthorized access and consider implementing additional account lockout policies as a compensating control.
- Consultation2.0 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 $4,480.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-2354 — 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-2014-2354 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