CVE-2014-2514
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 · uneditedEMC Documentum Content Server before 6.7 SP1 P28, 6.7 SP2 before P15, 7.0 before P15, and 7.1 before P06 does not properly check authorization and does not properly restrict object types, which allows remote authenticated users to run save RPC commands with super-user privileges, and consequently execute arbitrary code, via unspecified vectors.
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 confidenceEMC Documentum Content Server contains an authorization bypass vulnerability where remote authenticated users can execute save RPC commands with super-user privileges due to improper authorization checks and missing object type restrictions, leading to arbitrary code execution.
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<= 6.7= 6.7= 7.0= 7.1CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:S/C:C/I:C/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 the Documentum Content Server versionRun the command 'dmversion -v' or check the About dialog in Documentum Administrator, or look in the installer logs for the Content Server version stringAffected if The installed version is 6.7 (any patch level), 7.0 (any patch level), or 7.1 (any patch level), or any version <= 6.7
-
Verify if RPC services are enabled and exposedCheck the server configuration files (typically in $DOCUMENTUM/config or registry) for RPC listener settings, and check if the DMCL (Documentum Command Language) interface is enabled for network listenersAffected if RPC or DMCL services are enabled and accessible over the network to authenticated users
-
Confirm superuser or elevated privilege accounts existQuery the user repository using 'dm_user' objects or check the dm_server_config object for accounts with superuser privileges (r_superuser or equivalent rights)Affected if Any authenticated user account is configured with superuser privileges that can be leveraged through the vulnerability
-
Check authorization configuration for save RPC operationsReview the object type definitions and method permissions in the repository, specifically checking if save operations on dm_sysobject or other types lack proper ACL enforcementAffected if The authorization configuration permits save RPC calls without proper object type restrictions for non-admin users
-
Identify remote authentication mechanisms in useExamine the authentication configuration files (docbase.ini, global.asax, or LDAP/AD integration settings) to determine if external or domain authentication is enabled allowing remote user accessAffected if Remote authentication is enabled allowing domain or external users to authenticate to the Content Server
The environment is affected if the installed Documentum Content Server version is 6.7, 7.0, or 7.1 (any patch level) AND RPC services are accessible to authenticated users with potential superuser privileges.
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 dataApply the relevant patches: 6.7 SP1 P28 or later, 6.7 SP2 P15 or later, 7.0 P15 or later, or 7.1 P06 or later. Alternatively, upgrade to a supported patched version.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $7,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-2514 — 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-2014-2514 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