CVE-2014-2521
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 allows remote authenticated users to read sensitive object metadata via an RPC command.
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 information disclosure vulnerability where remote authenticated users can read sensitive object metadata through RPC commands. This affects versions before 6.7 SP2 P16 and 7.x before 7.1 P07.
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 installed Documentum Content Server versionCheck the Content Server version via the dm_version.txt file in the installation directory, or run 'dmversion' command if available, or query the repository database for version informationAffected if Version is 6.0, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7 (without SP2 P16), 7.0, or 7.1 (without 7.1 P07)
-
Confirm installed service packs and patchesReview the installed patches via the patch list in the Content Server installation or check the patch_log file. Look specifically for SP2 P16 on version 6.7 or P07 on version 7.1Affected if 6.7 versions lack SP2 P16, or 7.x versions lack 7.1 P07 patch
-
Verify RPC service is enabled and accessibleCheck the server configuration for RPC listener status (docbroker configuration) or test connectivity to the RPC port (typically port 1489). Inspect dm_server_config objects for RPC-enabled settingsAffected if RPC services are enabled and exposed to the network
-
Review RPC command authorization settingsExamine the dm_method objects and RPC method permissions in the Content Server. Check dm_group for rpc_* method permissions and user role assignments. Verify if non-administrator users have been granted RPC method execute rightsAffected if Authenticated users outside administrator roles can execute RPC commands
A user is affected if their Documentum Content Server version is 6.0 through 6.7 without SP2 P16, or 7.0/7.1 without 7.1 P07, and the RPC interface is enabled with broad user access.
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 vendor patches 6.7 SP2 P16 or 7.1 P07 to remediate the vulnerability. Restrict RPC command access to authorized administrators if patches cannot be applied immediately.
- 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-2014-2521 — 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-2014-2521 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