AnsibleApplication · Redhat
CVE-2014-2686
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 · uneditedAnsible prior to 1.5.4 mishandles the evaluation of some strings.
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 · low confidenceAnsible versions prior to 1.5.4 contain a vulnerability where certain strings are improperly evaluated, likely allowing injection of arbitrary code or commands through unsanitized string inputs.
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
AnsibleApplication
< 1.5.4CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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.
-
Check installed Ansible versionRun 'ansible --version' or check via package manager (e.g., 'rpm -q ansible' or 'pip show ansible')Affected if Version displayed is earlier than 1.5.4 (e.g., 1.5.3, 1.5.2, etc.)
-
Identify playbooks using evaluation contextsSearch playbook files (.yml) for usage of 'eval', '{{ }}' template expressions being passed to shell/command modules, or similar dynamic evaluation patternsAffected if Playbooks contain unsanitized user input being passed to evaluation contexts like template expressions or dynamic execution
-
Review Jinja2 template usageInspect templates (.j2 files) and look for cases where external variables or user-controlled data are directly used within template expressions without filteringAffected if Templates accept raw variable input that could be manipulated to inject code through template evaluation
-
Check for vulnerable module usageReview playbooks for modules that perform dynamic evaluation such as 'eval' filters, 'template' module with variable interpolation, or any module using Python's eval()/exec() on user inputAffected if Playbooks or templates use dynamic evaluation features with external/unfiltered input sources
You are affected if Ansible version is earlier than 1.5.4 AND your playbooks or templates pass unsanitized external input to evaluation contexts like template expressions or dynamic execution features.
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 data1.5.4
Upgrade Ansible to version 1.5.4 or later. Review playbooks and templates for unsanitized input being passed to evaluation contexts.
Fix this in Ansible
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-2686 — 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-2014-2686 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