TrafficdotApplication · Sensysnetworks

CVE-2014-2379

MEDIUM · 5.4 CVSS v2.0 Published 2014-09-05
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 2.10.2 or later.
See remediation →
59/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
No privileges 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
Sensys Networks VSN240-F and VSN240-T sensors VDS before 2.10.1 and TrafficDOT before 2.10.3 do not use encryption, which allows remote attackers to interfere with traffic control by replaying transmissions on a wireless network.

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

Sensys Networks VSN240-F and VSN240-T wireless traffic sensors running VDS before 2.10.1 and TrafficDOT before 2.10.3 transmit data without encryption over wireless networks. Attackers can capture and replay these unencrypted transmissions to manipulate traffic control operations.

MitigationUpgrade VDS to version 2.10.1 or later and TrafficDOT to version 2.10.3 or later to enable encryption. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, implement network segmentation and employ wireless intrusion detection to monitor for replay attacks on the sensor network.

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
TrafficdotApplication
Affected:<= 2.10.2= 2.8.3= 2.10.0= 2.10.1
Vsn240 FHardware / appliance
Affected:all versions
Vsn240 THardware / appliance
Affected:all versions
VdsApplication
Affected:<= 2.10.0= 1.8.5= 1.8.7= 2.6.3= 2.6.4

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
Adjacent
Complexity
M
Authentication
None
Confidentiality
Partial
Integrity
Partial
Availability
Partial

AV:A/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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 checks

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

  1. Identify the installed product and firmware version
    Access the sensor management interface or check the device label to determine if the device is a VSN240-F, VSN240-T, or a system running VDS or TrafficDOT software. Note the exact version number displayed in the system information or about section.
    Affected if The device is a VSN240-F or VSN240-T (all versions) OR the installed VDS version is 1.8.5, 1.8.7, 2.6.3, 2.6.4, or <= 2.10.0 OR the installed TrafficDOT version is 2.8.3, 2.10.0, 2.10.1, or <= 2.10.2
  2. Verify wireless encryption configuration on the sensor
    Log into the sensor management console or access the wireless network settings. Look for the encryption settings (WPA2, AES, or proprietary encryption) on the wireless interface connecting the sensor to the network.
    Affected if No encryption is enabled on the wireless interface, or the encryption is set to 'None' or 'Open'
  3. Capture and inspect wireless traffic from the sensor
    Use a wireless packet sniffer (such as Wireshark with a monitor-mode adapter) to capture traffic transmitted by the sensor. Examine the captured packets to determine if the payload data is encrypted or transmitted in plaintext.
    Affected if Traffic captures show unencrypted, plaintext data in the sensor transmissions (data appears as readable text rather than encrypted bytes)
  4. Check for replay attack vulnerability in network monitoring
    Review wireless intrusion detection system (WIDS) logs or network monitoring tools for any signs of repeated or duplicated sensor transmissions that could indicate a replay attack attempt.
    Affected if Duplicate sensor transmissions are detected on the network, or no replay attack detection mechanisms are in place

A user is affected if their device is a VSN240-F or VSN240-T (any version) or runs a vulnerable VDS/TrafficDOT version AND wireless encryption is not enabled or traffic is transmitted in plaintext.

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 a release after 2.10.2
Interim mitigation

Upgrade VDS to version 2.10.1 or later and TrafficDOT to version 2.10.3 or later to enable encryption. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, implement network segmentation and employ wireless intrusion detection to monitor for replay attacks on the sensor network.

Fix this in Trafficdot Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation8.0 h
  • Implementation16.0 h
  • Testing8.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
36.0 hours of engineering $6,400
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $10,240.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-2379 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2014-2379 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