CVE-2014-2520
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 SP2 P16 and 7.x before 7.1 P07, when Oracle Database is used, does not properly restrict DQL hints, which allows remote authenticated users to conduct DQL injection attacks and read sensitive database content via a crafted request.
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 versions prior to 6.7 SP2 P16 and 7.x prior to 7.1 P07 contain a DQL (Document Query Language) injection vulnerability when Oracle Database is the backend. The server does not properly restrict DQL hints, allowing authenticated remote users to inject malicious DQL statements through crafted requests and read sensitive database content.
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= 6.0= 6.5= 6.6= 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
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:M/Au:S/C:C/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 Documentum Content Server installationLocate the installed Documentum Content Server product and determine its version number using the installer, dmcl -version command, or by checking version files in the installation directoryAffected if The product is not EMC Documentum Content Server
-
Check version against affected rangesCompare the installed version to the affected list: 6.0, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 7.0, 7.1. Versions 6.7 SP2 P16 and 7.1 P07 contain the patchesAffected if The installed version is one of 6.0, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 7.0, or 7.1 without the respective patches applied
-
Verify Oracle Database is the backendInspect the Documentum server database configuration file (such as dbconfig.txt) or check the database type configured for the Content ServerAffected if The backend database is not Oracle - this vulnerability only applies when Oracle is the database backend
-
Check for remote authenticated DQL accessReview the network exposure and authentication settings for Documentum services (DMCL, DFC, or web interfaces) to determine if remote authenticated users can submit DQL queriesAffected if Remote authenticated users can submit DQL queries to the server
You are affected if you run an unpatched EMC Documentum Content Server version (6.0 through 7.1) with Oracle Database as the backend and allow remote authenticated users to submit DQL queries
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 vendor-supplied patches (6.7 SP2 P16 or 7.1 P07) to remediate this vulnerability. As an interim measure, restrict database user permissions to minimum necessary and enable database-level audit logging to detect suspicious DQL queries.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-2520 — 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-2014-2520 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